http://www.metacafe.com/watch/310622/fire_power/

This is no joke and really the beginning to the end of warfare , literally making soldiers , highaltitude bombers , missiles , Fighterjets , tanks and so on all obselete .

Any and all countries can afford to embrace such military might and will perhaps prove Einsteins theory ("I don't know how WW3 will be fought but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones "), beyond a reasonable doubt .

   

Hell of a system. But you just know there is some other clever guy working right now to defeat that weapon system. The proponents of ATGW* vs AFV's* were making the same claim in '67-'73. They were also making the same claims when the machinegun was coming of age back at the turn of the last century.

ATGW = Anti-tank guided weapon
AFV = Armoured Fighting Vehicle (Tanks, APC's)

Did you hear about the "Suit of Invisibility" development?
They've got a working prototype that effectively cancels or bends the visible light rays reflecting from an object cloaked in the stuff. They are now just working on reducing the visible distortion and shadow problems.

   

Thanks for responding SprCForr ...you're right , the technologies take surprising directions at least in a direction to keep it a formidable market . One would think , or like me ...would hope it would cause a serious defeat to itself ( cave in on itself ) but that just doesn't seem to be the case . anyway that weapon is pretty much affordable by any country and puts almost every soldier at a greater risk in the future unless the task of a soldier becomes more of a set up and run like hell (get outta there) job .
I don't think a country needs the US to manufacture such a deadly weapon . Its reasonably basic and carries a high rate of anti anything power .

   

I fail to see the purpose of something like this (for small arms) in the battlefield outside of specific situations. A weapons capacity as far as I can see is limited by its barrel, and to reload you need to change the barrel.

Firing off all thirty rounds at one target, removing the barrel, putting in a new one, firing again. Seems like a terribly innefficient way of going about it.

Further instead of firing 50 40mm rounds at a building why not just fire a few, far larger rounds?

   

I guess thats why Nukes were created

   

There's always a trade-off somewhere. TMD, you picked it off - ammo supply carried vs rate of fire.