|
Posted by Ignoramus4546 on March 14, 2006, 11:13 am
Please log in for more thread options
TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
sub-thread.
My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
really not too much.
What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
and replaced when it breaks.
So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
could be taken and displayed.
That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
project.
It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
doable.
i
|
|
Posted by steamer on March 14, 2006, 11:38 am
Please log in for more thread options
--Looks like I sorta ended the last thread, or maybe nobody's awake
yet today. Two things to consider:
1) The Humvee is a lame vehicle in that it wasn't designed to
protect against this kind of threat. Applique armor notwithstanding it's
still a lame solution. There are *much* better vehicles for sale but the US
seems to want to buy "domestic" and that's what's killing people.
2) As the British found in Northern Ireland, once your troops are
bottled up in an IED-proof vehicle they become ineffective; i.e. too
dangerous to leave the vehicle, you might as well not be there, or be there
in a tank and accept the fact that you're going to have to destroy the
neighborhood to whack the bad guys. The "solution" is to not be there, IMO.
Oh, sure, you could switch to a bazillion remote sensing platforms, but
that's an imperfect fit with the mission. As a pal of mine who's in the
profession says: the landmine *is* the "hack"..
--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Better an early adapter
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : than an early adopter..
http://www.nmpproducts.com/intro.htm
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---
|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on March 14, 2006, 1:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options steamer wrote:
> --Looks like I sorta ended the last thread, or maybe nobody's awake
> yet today. Two things to consider:
> 1) The Humvee is a lame vehicle in that it wasn't designed to
> protect against this kind of threat. Applique armor notwithstanding it's
> still a lame solution. There are *much* better vehicles for sale but the
> US seems to want to buy "domestic" and that's what's killing people.
The Humvee is the replacement for the jeep. It was never intended to be an
AFV anymore than a jeep was intended to be an AFV.
Now, what are these "*much* better vehicles" that serve the same function as
a jeep? Or are you saying that there is no place in the miltary for a
jeep?
> 2) As the British found in Northern Ireland, once your troops are
> bottled up in an IED-proof vehicle they become ineffective; i.e. too
> dangerous to leave the vehicle, you might as well not be there, or be
> there in a tank and accept the fact that you're going to have to destroy
> the neighborhood to whack the bad guys.
"Whacking the bad guys" only works once you've found the bad guys. And once
you've found them if you're willing to destroy the neighborhood you may as
well just call in an air strike. If you've found enough of them that you
can't get out of the vehicle because of the intensity of fire then you've
accomplished your mission of finding them.
Further, a tank is not an "IED-proof vehicle", it just needs a bigger or
more cleverly applied IED.
> The "solution" is to not be there,
> IMO. Oh, sure, you could switch to a bazillion remote sensing platforms,
> but that's an imperfect fit with the mission. As a pal of mine who's in
> the profession says: the landmine *is* the "hack".
The "hack" for _what_?
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|
Posted by Polymer Man on March 14, 2006, 11:47 am
Please log in for more thread options
Ignoramus4546 wrote:
> TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
> discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
> a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
> newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
> as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
>
> I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
> sub-thread.
>
Could they construct concrete barriers along the sides of the roads,
like we have along some interstates. It would also have the benefit of
employing the local people. Employed people are happy people. Finding
sand wouldn't be a problem...
|
|
Posted by Don Foreman on March 14, 2006, 12:53 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:13:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
>TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
>discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
>a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
>newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
>as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
>
>I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
>sub-thread.
>
>My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
>from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
>could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
>mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
>really not too much.
>
>What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
>chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
>does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
>sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
>have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
>and replaced when it breaks.
>
>So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
>transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
>transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
>detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
>caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
>could be taken and displayed.
>
>That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
>project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
>project.
>
>It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
>doable.
>
>i
So you take pictures of the tangoes and mail them tickets? Take
pix fast, because the mean life of those cameras will be minutes.
Technology is only useful in warfare to the extent that it better
enables soldiers, sailors or airmen to shoot, move and communicate,
deliver fire and capture or destroy the enemy.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:07 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:09 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:14 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:21 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 3:15 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 7:31 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 7:35 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 11:20 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 15, 2006, 1:02 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 16, 2006, 7:09 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> yet today. Two things to consider:
> 1) The Humvee is a lame vehicle in that it wasn't designed to
> protect against this kind of threat. Applique armor notwithstanding it's
> still a lame solution. There are *much* better vehicles for sale but the
> US seems to want to buy "domestic" and that's what's killing people.