>>561760
>Projects that don't initially appear to have practical value are how technological breakthroughs happen.
Give us some examples, because all the major engineering breakthroughs that came to mind are the result of projects that did appear to have practical value. What you've said might be true for scientific breakthtroughs, but science and engineering work very differently. Also, this project clearly has a goal, that goal just happens to be retarded.
>Lessons learned from messing around with hinged metal arms rigidly attached to your back could later be applied to something like a robotic manipulator that folds behind you when you don't need it to stabilize the weapon. Or an arm made of a material that can become flexible and press against your body when you need to lie down or move through a tight space.
That you say these things means even you understand that the concept in its current form is flawed and needs an even more complicated contraception to work.
>Materials science is developing very fast and things like that are at least working in a lab environment.
I'm rather sure that the folding arm is not a question of material science, but of robotics. In other words, the arm will have to be even more complicated and expensive.
>If you're hitting half your shots instead of two percent of them you're not going to need to fight in such a passive way.
If you are hitting half of your shots then the enemy has no cover available. For that to happen you need both a rifle that can penetrate 99% of cover on a battlefield, and some kind of a sensor suite or a network that can detect enemy soldiers hiding behind cover. Without those two you will have suppress the enemy with your own fire.