Translation...
find a bloke in a turban in a bloody great country....
Radical Pentagon boffins have decided to build super high-tech binoculars or goggles which would - according to the government specifications - be able to identify and pick out "a needle moving along the surface of a haystack". The planned technology has been dubbed Fine Detail Optical Surveillance (FDOS), and regular readers …
to the flying drones?
So they can find an elusive target and kill him?
They are readying the things already so they can terminate John Conner after the machines take over
Right time to change this posting to BBC style news reporting
"Now children, listen very carefully. We're all Dooomed .. Doomed"
Etc etc etc
In all seriousness, reading the description of metamaterials (I don't know who came up with that name, it's not descriptive..), the ones that have a negative index of refraction allow for seemlingly physically impossible feats such as sub-wavelength resolution, and I think could be "aimed" and "focused" without moving parts (for RF use this is "beam forming" but I don't see why it wouldn't work at optical wavelengths.) It'll take some software to find the needle, but the actual optics are surprisingly possible.
This would be a must-have gadget for scouts. Crawl to the top of the hill, whip out the electronoculars and do a slow left-right. Anything moving in the distance gets tagged on the internal screen. One press of a button and the "enocs" zoom in to allow for maximum ident ability. Press button again and normal scanning resumes. Once the sweep is finished, scout crawls back down, and signals that nothing is moving in the next sector.
The squad resumes silent progression through the undergrowth . . .
Such an equipment will obviously require optics that are beyond current abilities. And high-def CCDs coupled to movement-detecting software, along with the requisite 5 pound battery. But hey, I'd really like a working version myself !
"it is one of the many troubled, rather disturbing yet occasionally freakishly brilliant brainchildren of rogue US military boffin bureau DARPA."
Yes, and the reason they are so often "troubled" is that, at sometime in their murky past, they illogically concluded that, as 90% of basic research projects "fail", so any of their agent-sponsors who were not experiencing at least 90% failure in reaching their project goals were not applying their funding properly. No kidding!