What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
61 Comments
- Chebyshev, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Yard long rockets are heavy. Kevlar is heavy. I'm sure the launching system is heavy. Installing this system would impact the mission effectiveness of the aircraft because it won't be able to carry more fuel/hellfires/troops/etc. Launching 3 heavy missiles at once also radically changes the mass properties of the aircraft in flight. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it isn't nearly as simple as the article makes it sound.
-Engineer at a major helicopter manufacturer - chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13you know it's a good idea because it's one you see and think "why didn't I think of that"
- Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11You may have a point, but if it's a relatively cheap system that saves an expensive piece of equipment along with a handful of trained lives, it may actually be cheaper. Blackhawks are a tad more expensive to loose than a humvee.
- wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Body armor with huge holes in it.
- Frost9999, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@phantom - the article says the system is automated. Radar detects the incoming projectile and aims and launches the nets half a second later.
My first thought about this was how useful it would be for protecting tanks and other vehicles on the ground which are at high risk from the same RPG devices. Of course with a tank you could theoretically surround it with a permanent net system. Actually... why don't they do that already? - Talphin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Very smart idea. I like it.
- lambo13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I worked on selecting one of these systems for Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs), and the reason we haven't fielded these systems has NOTHING to do with money. The reason we don't put these on tanks, APCs, LAVs, Helos, etc is because the troops DON'T WANT THEM.
I did countless studies and user surveys with Marines and none of them want a computer automatically firing grenades, kinetic rods, or explosive nets at incoming RPGs. Why? Two reasons:
1. Insurgents can't aim their crappy Russian RPG7s so they almost NEVER hit their targets. RPGs just aren't a serious threat because their hit percentage is in the single digits, as in maybe 5%. And when they do hit our vehicles, the vast majority of the time they are duds or they do little to no damage.
2. Military Operations on Urban Terrain (MOUT) maneuvers require ground troops to patrol alongside these vehicles, and the last thing you want is a computer firing a grenade at an RPG that may or may not hit their vehicle, when you have 5 Marines within 10 meters of the blast area.
Trust me, the money is much better spent on IEDs, not RPGs. - Postalwrker27, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8If you wan't to make body armor out of a net, be my guest. My guess is it'll do absolutely zippy.
- PhantomRogue, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I like it, but RPGs are fired 'close' range, how will these be deployed early enough to actually catch the RPG a 'safe' distance from the Aircraft?
- DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@Cheby
Well they would allow a certain weight allowance for point defense systems, if the military really wanted to make point defense systems a requirement on its helicopters. Compared to the THEL laser concept, I still believe that this system would be lighter. Also the THEL has a slower reaction time because it needs a considerable amount of time to heat the projectile to destroy it (you need to hold the laser on the RPG to heat it up and destroy it)
Yes, you would lose some payload though, and possibly reduce the maneuverability of the aircraft so it would have a harder time dodging incoming projectiles. All factors to weight which is why this guy needs some money to test it. - TheGeneral, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@phantomrogue
"In Glasson’s system, the chopper’s radar calculates the speed and trajectory of an incoming grenade within milliseconds. Half a second later, pods of launch tubes on the helicopter aim and fire between one and eight unguided yard-long rockets on an intercept course with the grenade." - JohnboiWaltune, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It could slice the potato into french fries automatically, giving our troops a tasty snack.
- maeon3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Will the radar system be sophisticated enough to differentiate between a live working RPG and a potato gun? This could cause more trouble than it's worth if there are lots of false alarms.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Problem is, the DOD get into internal financial politics. If they've got billions invested on a laser based system that is 60% effective with lots of people being greased, then the odds of developing a system at a fraction of the cost with much higher effectiveness is lower.
- jmkiii, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@phantomrogue
Any distance is safer than no distance! - adolfojp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@frost9999 (#6733703)
They kind of do that with the Stryker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker - neonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm
That system seems to work pretty damn well, and it can catch RPGs at close range. I imagine it will detect the RPGs in the same or a similar way, just the destruction of the round will be different. - Barbarino, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Why don't they build the whole plane out of the black box material??
Seinfeld - MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@postalwrker27 I think he meant, Kevlar is rather expensive and useful material, I'd be willing to bet if recapturing the nets after they land was safe a team would do it, but I doubt anyone would risk much over it.
- ricepudd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They should forget nets and instead use baby dolls...
Lister: "Back in the 22nd Century aerospace engineers discovered that after a plane crash, the only thing that always survives intact is a cute little doll, so they made Starbug out of the same stuff. " (Red Dwarf) - ayeroxor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5http://www.scribd.com/doc/53187/10-Grammar-Mistakes-That-Make-You-Look-Stupid
Number One. - bioflux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Even another good reason to invest in the technology.
- bioflux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I strongly agree with you there, IEDs are a far greater threat. But I've been in helo squadrons though, they typically aren't armored and it wouldn't take much to bring one down if hit. First, your referring mainly to ground vehicles, according to the article this system is being developed for helicopters. Second, why wouldn't you want a automated tracking and firing system. We use them on our ships in the Navy and they are far more accurate than anything a human could produce. Third, the system doesn't fire any kind of explosive, it fires rockets that deploy kevlar nets to catch and bring the projectile to the ground. So where does the danger lie? We already have the technology to help counter IEDs, the problem is the government doesn't seem to be willing to invest in it.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@frost9999
Yes, the round will be destroyed one way or another. I don't think these nets are designed to keep the RPG safe. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If I was an insurgent, I'd take the kevlar net and try to snare a chopper's blades with it. Asymmetrical warfare will continue.
- Frost9999, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The rounds explode after a few seconds even if they don't hit a target. So destruction is assured.
- 1randomnumber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I can't really say much as I was given a bunch of NDA crap to sign when I saw the systems and whatnot, but Raytheon's got a system that's a mite bit better than this, that simply shoots a rocket at the incoming rocket or rpg and detonates it before it hits. It's primarily for tanks now, but it could easily be adapted for helicopters. But it's absurd how fast it detects and hits the ordnance coming in. Cool to watch, too.
- TheRingmaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Remember this for writing comments, I will only say this once: what the hell?!
- tradsud, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1On "Reign of Fire", these also work to catch dragons, lol.
- xaxxon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2They're not "OUR" troops. If they were OUR troops, they'd be here, not killing, not dying, and not spending insane amounts of money in a foreign civil war that can't be won.
They're Bush's troops, because he's just about the only one who thinks they should be there. At least according to just about every opinion poll I've seen. - bioflux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, considering the US dumps more money into military technology then any other country and the fact that Popular Science is a US based magazine, I guess that would be a true statement.
- raid517, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I thought about doing something very similar years ago for an for an anti ICBM system in space - only in this instance the nets would be several kilometers wide.
I thought then that the idea was probably crazy - but since hearing this I wonder...
I thought of it then as a kind of 'non lethal' technology (based on submarine nets) - which didn't involve the development of billion dollar laser systems and which didn't break any international arms treaties (since it is clearly still not a weapon).
But like I said, I also suspected that the idea was probably somehow crazy and that there was a reason why it wouldn't work. - OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't think you would enjoy using a composite fiber and steel net as a prophylactic.
I don't think it would even work? - OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have the print version of that issue. They don't have any other weapons in it.
It is however true that PS loves to whore itself out to military contractors to promote whatever their latest "futuristic" gadget is. They don't really do any fact checking. If you look at some of their back issues, you can see how far-fetched some of these claims have been in the past.
It doesn't really matter, except that sometimes some of these hopeless projects actually manage to get taxpayer funding, and I'd rather not have my taxes going into the pockets of military-industrial contractor charlatans. - Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Comparing the impact of IEDs to the massive influence of RPGs is rather ignorant. The RPG made it for light infantry to effectively fight against heavy armor. EIDs have zero tactical advantage. They're just about getting news stories.
- stevievep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1reading 'copper shield' and seeing IED, why did my brain process 'IUD'?
- Caldar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Part of the problem with this system is that it leaves valuable assets on the ground for the enemy to use against us. They could simply collect the undamaged Kevlar parachutes and use them to help protect their position and assets, such as vehicles and base camps, by surrounding them with the nets. This could make physical access to their location harder, and render our own RPGs and grenades useless. The parachutes could also be strung together to create instant pop up road traps that snare our vehicles and troops. Gathering the materials for such improvised uses becomes as easy as swinging at a Piñata ... simply shoot at a helicopter and the goodies drop out. There is little more insulting that getting beat with your own weapons and systems. A solution that does not tons of useful materials on the ground for the enemy to use is needed.
- bioflux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Seems like a very sound idea. $10,000 to produce is very cost effective when it comes to saving a multi-million dollar chopper. I think it would also be a lot more effective then a laser based defense system considering the close proximity that RPGs are fired. Lasers take time to heat up the warhead before it explodes. Having something that can actually block or deflect the effects of the explosion seems like it would take far less time, especially when you only have maybe a few seconds before impact. I'm sure the effects of carrying the new system would have a negible impact on the helicopter's performance. I've worked with avionics and ordanance and a laser based system would be far more bulky and heavy. Sure the chopper might not be able to fly as far or carry as many troops, but think of the lives saved. We've lost enough troops in the Middle East already. Any money spent to save their lives is money well spent in my book!
- sre10467, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I would be a little rattled knowing kevlar & steel nets were being fanned out anywhere close to a choppers' spinning rotors! There must be some proximity sensor involved so as to avoid getting deployed near the blades.
- mweflen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Someone should invent a better design for popsci.com. What a crap layout.
A Winner Is You! - zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Retired chopper pilot Lt. Col. James Bullinger, an editor at Army Aviation magazine, thinks they will. “When it comes to saving lives,” Bullinger says, “they will spend the money on it.”"
Unfortunately it's more like, when it comes to saving expensive military equipment.. - bioflux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You'd be amazed how advanced radar systems are now. Especially what the Navy uses.
- lambo13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0To be honest, I didn't do any work on helos, so this may be an acceptable solution for them. But I bring up ground vehicles because that is the larger application for this technology. Nets have been a very popular solution for some vendors, particularly explosive nets. But regardless, anything fired at speed, whether explosive or not, posses a serious deadly threat to dismounts nearby. And the reason you don't want an automated system firing anything is that you have dismounts all around your vehicle that would be in the danger zone.
So then you think, well make a system where you have user configurable zones so that the system only watches say the front 180 and keep dismounts behind the vehicle. But on the modern urban battlefield, you never know where the threat is, so it is pointless to try to guess where the threat is and to have the system only protect one side.
You have more experience with helos, so I can't speak to that, but all of the Marines I interviewed and spoke with said that even if they had this system installed on their vehicles, they would never use it. Soldiers tend to not trust technology, particularly in the infantry. And they all agreed that RPGs just aren't a significant threat when IEDs are claiming so many more lives. There is a limited pot of money to be used to develop new defense tech, and the money would be better spent on IEDs. Is there a chance that soldiers could be bit by rabid dogs and die from rabies? Sure, but why spend the money on such a small threat? That is the logic there.
Regardless, the technology employed here is absolutely amazing. I've seen videos of sabot rounds traveling just under 2k meters per second, be identified, tracked, intercept point determined, turret slewed, and interceptor fired to stop the round. Unreal. - jeffeb3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0"Cost to develop: $10,000" yeah right, engineers cost a little more than that.... I think maybe they meant cost to produce? That still seems ridiculously cheap.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1***** off. This is the internet, not a masters thesis.
- yojayyyy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's rocket science? I say it's not NOT rocket science.
http://www.cafepress.com/yojay.169086527 - bordicon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0One problem with this system is its freely giving away kevlar to people on th ground. This may enable insurgents to create primitive armor, which is not a good idea. Second, I feel that counter measures for this net is readily available. Maybe putting razor blades on the end of the rocket. Even though steel and kevlar are resistant materials, the rocket's force plus the counter-rocket force maybe enough to cut through the netting. I recommend a microwave solution. Try and heat up the rpg so it explodes remotely.
- OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I've always wondered why they never did something like this. They use a "wall" of bullets from automatic cannons to protect ships from missiles, the Russians have a sort of giant shotgun to protect tanks (which the Israelis ripped off recently and called an "invisible forcefield"--remember that?), why not use an actual wall made from netting?
Anyway, get out of Iraq, before you get shot. - Chepito, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4@phantom
I agree, and I think that it would have to be automated in some way. - jordanlund, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0So you have one person attack the chopper from 11 o'clock and another from 5 o'clock. The system tracks both RPGs but can only respond to one of them in time. Boom. Problem solved.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is