TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Well ... I guess Darpa is not a total waste of space

Well ... I guess Darpa is not a total waste of space

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3206493.stm

Anti-sniper laser set for Iraq


The US military plans to deploy a hi-tech laser device in Iraq which is capable of pinpointing sniper fire, a top Pentagon scientist has said.
Other anti-guerrilla technologies in the pipeline would help detect roadside bombs and booby-traps, which have been inflicting daily casualties on US forces.

"One of the problems we're having is that people in Iraq can almost do anything they want, and get away with it. We don't have a good way to respond," said Anthony Tether, head of the Pentagon's research agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The development and testing of the hi-tech systems is being accelerated in response to the problems US forces have been experiencing in Iraq.

"What we're trying to do is come up with technology that will at least make people hesitate," Mr Tether said.


"They're not going to be 100% solutions, but when you're in a situation where you have no solutions, even a 25% solution is going to be great," he explained.

DARPA plans to send the laser to Iraq in the next three or four months.

The device is designed to pick-up and pinpoint the sound of sniper gunshots in much the same way as radar detects moving objects.

Particle movement sensors

The ground-based carbon dioxide laser, which is said to have a range of "tens of kilometres", measures particle movement to figure out where a shot originated from.

"It has various detection elements. You can determine by time differences where the sound came from and work backwards to where it had to be on the ground," Mr Tether explained.


Desert convoys should be able to pinpoint potential bomb attacks

The device was originally developed, at a cost of $7m, as a means of detecting vehicles concealed behind land objects, such as hills, but now it will be pressed into action against lone gunmen.

Other experimental devices also to be deployed will try to home in on signals from mobile phones or pagers which are used to trigger remote roadside bombs.

"It's not very good in the middle of the city, because everybody has a cell phone," Mr Tether said. "But if you get in a convoy going across the desert or something like that and you started sensing electronics over to the right on the road a hundred yards ahead of you, that would be a great tip off."

DARPA technology has already been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where robots have been used to explore caves hiding enemy forces.

And US troops are using hand-held translation devices developed by the agency, which are able to translate simple English phrases such as "put your hands up" into 16 languages, including Arabic.



Kinda cool if you're into military technology.

DARPA rocks. They do so much research that bleeds over into civilian technology. Especially in the aircraft departments.

I miss one show above all from the old Discover channel (ca. 1995): Firepower. It was like Wings only was specifically about land based weaponry. They did stuff like rundown the best shoulder fired anti-tank missles from around the world and stuff. When they started the Wings Channel (which I have and love) that was great, but they need to fit those other shows back into a rotation somewhere.

I am not much for war but I sure do like watching shows about the gadgets they use

MrS

I am sure it will be a very useful technology, but historically new technologies rarely give one side the killer edge because their enemies either improve their own technologies or go down technology, ie they use less technology not more and win through weight of numbers. The USA and Soviet Union both had overwhelming technological superiority against Vietnam and Afghanistan and they both lost.

A very interesting book, available online is called Unrestricted Warfare by a pair of former Chinese army officers talks about this very topic, how the US relies on its technology to give it the edge and that creates a very fatal weakness. I highly recommend it, some of it is a bit turgid but that may be the translation.

It is an academic work not an anti-american propaganda work so its well worth a read for anyone interested in knowing how the professional military see the future of war.

It doesnt make for happy reading.


http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resourc...ted-warfare.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by rupert I am sure it will be a very useful technology, but historically new technologies rarely give one side the killer edge because their enemies either improve their own technologies or go down technology, ie they use less technology not more and win through weight of numbers. The USA and Soviet Union both had overwhelming technological superiority against Vietnam and Afghanistan and they both lost.

Tecnological superiority vs numerical superiority was not the reason for the failures of the superpowers in the Vietnam and Afghanistan conflicts. It was a lack of both strategic and tactical flexibility which made them unable to cope with an enemy that was far different from what they had war-gamed against.

In the case of the USSR in Afghanistan, they became to dependent upon Hind helicoptor gunships after they proved so effective early on in the war. When the CIA started giving the Mujahadeen Stinger missles to shoot down the Hinds the Soviets could not adjust quickly or effectively enough to combat this drastic change of momentum.

The side with a technological edge always has an advantage in the long run. The US never used it's major technological advantage in Vietnam (despite the advice of Kissinger to Nixon) when it comes to dropping the bomb.

Wars are won by good planning yes, but also by the ability for the commanders both on the field and off to be able to adapt to the fluid nature of warfare.

MrS

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.