backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by eddieroolz.. on Jan 29 at 10:39 AM


Eureka's Electomagnetic Pulse Cannon prototype looks to stop vehicles dead in their tracks. A portable suitcase-sized successor will be shown off next month.  (Source: http://cache.gawker.com)
Armed forces looking for a safe way to stop vehicles in their tracks

Being able to stop vehicles on command is an important asset for our military. Unfortunately the most effective methods to date are messy -- generally either severely damaging to the vehicle or passenger or using a sniper. The US Air Force has recognized the need for a more eloquent method to incapacitate vehicles, and has issued a request for information, seeking a non-lethal "Car Stopper." Often times these requests can result in questionable technologies, such as war robots and rail guns, however this time a reasonable solution may already exist.

California based company Eureka Aerospace has recently created  an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) cannon capable of stopping vehicles by disabling their electronic devices (see video here), and may be the one to answer the Air Force’s call. The company has been working on EMP technology since 2001, and has made impressive progress since that time.

The original Cannon was 200 lb and six by three feet in size, with an effective range of less than 15m, and now with the help of funding by the US Marines and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, it is compact enough to be vehicle mounted, and boasts a range of 200m.

Implementation of the device has strong implications for our defense. It will be capable of, "non-lethal area denial to vehicles/boats for perimeter protection of high value assets, e.g. personnel barracks, from approaching hostile vehicles, carrying explosives and immobilizing vehicles on urban, suburban roads and multi-lane highways," and will be both vehicle and aircraft mountable.

 The model shown in the video is a prototype. A smaller model (suit-case sized, about 50lbs) capable of stopping vehicles from 200m  (656ft) away  will be shown next month for the Marines at the Dahgren Naval Warfare Center.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Huh?
By porkpie on 1/25/2010 1:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever in the world are you calling rail guns "questionable technology"? Or even war robots, for that matter. What you would prefer in a war, people killing people, or robots shooting robots?




RE: Huh?
By smackababy on 1/25/2010 1:25:20 PM , Rating: 5
Personally, I prefer people killing people. That way we don't, as a race, feel war has no loss.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/25/2010 1:30:17 PM , Rating: 1
So a war in which 1,000,000 people die is better than one where no one dies...because it puts us "more in tune with our loss"?

Strange philosophy ya got there, I have to say.


RE: Huh?
By tmouse on 1/25/2010 2:53:41 PM , Rating: 4
Not so strange, it's better to prevent a war. Anyone who seriously thinks wars will EVER be fought just between robots is a fool. Such an event will never happen period. If that's the case why bother building robots? Just have a virtual war. This will never happen and it's a fool's dream to think so. The more aseptic we make war (which usually means only one side has minimal losses) the less incentive there is to avoid it in the first place. What we will have is more bystanders in poor areas being devastated while the powers that be play "war games" with little loss of their people. Yes I think war should always be so horrific and cost so much life on both sides it is used as a LAST resort. It has its place; but only as a last resort.

Now back on topic this is a good idea, even as a crime safety measure and could save lives


RE: Huh?
By SiliconJon on 1/25/2010 3:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armaged...

Simulate the war, then march the "casualties" off to their disposal to ensure a more accurate simulation and cost of war.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By whiskerwill on 1/25/2010 3:57:58 PM , Rating: 3
I have to agree that the idea that "we have to make people suffer as much as possible in war" is pretty silly. By that logic, we should repeal the Geneva Convention, and go back to using mustard gas, carpet-bombing civilian populations, and all those other wonderful ways to make people regret they ever got involved in warfare.


RE: Huh?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2010 6:54:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I have to agree that the idea that "we have to make people suffer as much as possible in war" is pretty silly.


No. The idea is to make the enemy take more losses than it's able to bear. Not to make people suffer.


RE: Huh?
By MrPoletski on 1/28/2010 5:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the objective was to get them to say 'we surrender'.


RE: Huh?
By sigilscience on 1/25/2010 7:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
The history of the Middle East (among others) has shown us that the more someone suffers from a war, the more likely they(or their children) are to keep fighting in retaliation.


RE: Huh?
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2010 9:38:29 AM , Rating: 3
So you're saying we should just nuke them from orbit and be done with it in one, swift, decise measure? ;)


RE: Huh?
By eddieroolz on 1/26/2010 1:40:54 AM , Rating: 1
I see your point regarding the nature of war.

A practical example would be if only the US had nuclear weapons. That would make the US more aggressive towards others. The Russians strongly opposed the proposed SDI initiative by Reagan because it would allow the US to destroy incoming nuclear-armed Soviet missiles in flight.

Another practical example of "keeping war real": MAD (mutually assured destruction) was the only thing that saved the world during the 40 years of Cold War. If it wasn't for the Soviets catching up, the US would have made Russia into a nuclear wasteland without second thought.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/27/2010 2:56:31 AM , Rating: 3
" If it wasn't for the Soviets catching up, the US would have made Russia into a nuclear wasteland without second thought."

Where do people get nonsense like this? The US could have "turned Japan into a nuclear wasteland" in 1945 -- but it didn't. Instead, as soon as Japan surrendered, the US went in and helped the country rebuild itself.

As for Russia, it didn't have capability to deliver nukes to US soil until the 1950s; the US could have nuked the bejeezus out of Moscow before then had they wanted to. The Cold War existed out of the Soviets stated, continually-repeated intention to dominate the world through communism. NATO was formed primarily at the behest of European >states, rightly worried about Soviet tanks rolling across their borders.

MAD was the most ludicrously immoral concept mankind ever created. What sort of ethical person holds the lives of tens of millions of innocent civilians hostage for the good behaviour of their leaders? MAD was also highly unstable, and led us nearly to the brink of catastrophe on at two different occasions.

Thankfully, the development of ABM technologies have invalidated MAD, and we no longer need to rely on such an insane method of 'protection'.


RE: Huh?
By eddieroolz on 1/29/2010 10:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
US could not have turned Japan into a nuclear wasteland. Do you know why?

The US threatened Japan that they had more nuclear weapons. However, it is widely known that US was bluffing and the fact is, Little Boy and Fat Man were the only ones available at the time. To produce any more would have taken few more months.

The same goes with your statement that US would have nuked Russia. They exploded their first nuclear bomb sometime in the late 40's - US was just coming out of WWII and Korean War was looming on the horizon. Plus, now that they detonated a nuclear device, the US would have had to be more careful in dealing with them. And that's exactly what happened in history.

If you think that MAD wans't the sole thing that save the world for 40 years - I don't know what to tell you. I know that many of us owe our existance due to restraint on both sides.


RE: Huh?
By CHAOQIANG on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By mattclary on 1/26/2010 10:55:51 AM , Rating: 4
If no one dies, it's not a war, it's a football game.


RE: Huh?
By Obujuwami on 1/26/2010 12:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
I gotta agree with this one. If no one dies, then we as a people, not just a society, do not value what was gained from that conflict. This is why wars like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan are hard for people to understand, there is not a clear example of what is gained. In WWII, it was clear what was gained, our safety and freedom. (hokey, but it's true)

With other wars and conflicts since then have really been for ideological reasons EXCEPT for our recent liberation of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been the first conflict in about 60 years where our direct safety was at risk from a group of zealots who seek only the destruction of what is considered "corrupt" by them. They carry no allegiance to anyone, even if they have aided them in the past (as they have shown by attacking the US and now Pakistan) and it is that which makes them truly dangerous.

If those zealots had robots that attacked people at random, killing the robots would mean nothing if we didn't somehow manage to track down the people controlling them. So if terrorist got robots that could walk/roll into a populated area, no matter the size, and kill hundreds, if not thousands of people, and could do so with NO chance of being physically damaged in any way, then the deaths of those people, while a terrible tragedy would literally count for nothing as the people who committed the crime are far away and can't be touched.

While dark, it is a real life example of what COULD happen.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
"This is why wars like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan are hard for people to understand, there is not a clear example of what is gained"

Lol, are you saying no one died in Vietnam or Korea? It has nothing to do with how many people died anyway. We don't have a "clear example of what was gained" in those conflicts for the very simple reasons we didn't gain very much. One war was an effective stalemate, the other a semi-qualified loss.

Afghanistan now, is a war easy for anyone to understand what we gained. The Taliban went from controlling the entire country to living in a few caves.


RE: Huh?
By mcnabney on 1/26/2010 11:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
The Taliban right now control more square feet than the US and Afghanie government do.

Also, I think the argument about 'easy war' is more likely to be realized by the side that fields the robots. We are having 'easy war' right now in Pakistan by using Predator drones (robots) to fire missiles at enemy targets. It really is no different than when we sent B52s into Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict, but now there is no risk to American lives so the US public really doesn't care what happens to those brown people.
Only rich countries can use robots. The poor ones just use meatbags.


RE: Huh?
By porkpie on 1/27/2010 3:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I'd much rather Taliban soldiers die. I realize you'd rather see the splattered guts of US boys and girls, so war will "feel more real" to you, but real war is about meeting your objectives with as little loss as possible.

"The Taliban right now control more square feet than the US and Afghanie government do."

Totally false. The Taliban AND the Pashtun together only control some 11 provinces. They manage to launch attacks and make more than 50% of the country dangerous to US and Afghan govt. forces...but thats FAR from "being in control" of an area. Here's a map to clear things up:

http://www.geographictravels.com/2009/08/map-of-ta...


RE: Huh?
By CHAOQIANG on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
I wonder....
By marvdmartian on 1/25/2010 9:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
How many vehicles you can find in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, that are still running on plugs & points? I'd bet it's still a fairly decent number.

For those not old enough to know about this "ancient" technology, an EMP burst would only be effective against a "modern" vehicle with electronic controls, not against an older vehicle that uses points in the electrical distribution system.

In other words, that car/truck bomb would just keep coming at you.




RE: I wonder....
By Low Key on 1/25/2010 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
The emp burst may not kill the car but it is highly probable that the bomb is detonated by an electronic device that the emp burst may disable. I don't really know about the effects of this technology but most bombs, even low tech ones, are still detonated by electrical impulses.


RE: I wonder....
By William Gaatjes on 1/26/2010 4:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
I am playing advocate of the devil here...

But if i would know this technology exists, i would use a combination of an electrical detonator and a mechanical detonator. Combine it with a keep a live signal. When the keep alive signal falls away, boom... Interfere with the signal from the transmitter, time out occurs because of no keep alive signal boom... I want to let it explode now, i transmit the boom code and boom...

It is not really difficult to make such a device. It is using existing technologies. But luckily i never would want to do that :). Way to much a believer of peace...



By bohrd on 1/25/2010 9:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
So let's say it needs to be used in some poverty stricken country, what are the chances that some of the vehicles there won't have any electronics? I would say it would be a good bet.

This would also be a bad time to have a pacemaker. Sorry Cheney.




By MrPoletski on 1/28/2010 5:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
didn't you see the Bin Laden edition of pimp my ride? =)


Animatrix
By Omega215D on 1/25/2010 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like they're getting ready for the Second Renaissance...

Once we build and perfect this weapon we can go on to make advanced AI thus leading us to technological singularity! And if the birth of AI backfires on us we will be prepared. =P




One step closer!
By therealnickdanger on 1/25/2010 11:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
By JDHack42 on 1/25/2010 3:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
I so want a mini-emp device to silence people's annoying car alarms at 3am. It doesn't have to be big, just something you put on the hood, pull the trigger and everything in a 3ft radius is fried. That's all....




By jskirwin on 1/25/2010 5:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Tru TV's World's Wildest Police Chases.




By 91TTZ on 1/25/2010 5:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
This technology would be easily defeated by putting your electronics inside a Faraday Cage.

Just about all critical military hardware is shielded in such a way.




EPFCG?
By HostileEffect on 1/26/2010 2:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
This is stupid.
By dsx724 on 1/25/2010 3:40:42 PM , Rating: 1
Commercializing the technology will do more harm then good to the general public. What is stopping hooligans, criminals, and terrorists from disabling police vehicles or even sabotaging an ambulances and fire trucks? I can fry every piece of electronics in your house by simply driving down your street with one of these things attached to my car. This is worst than a weapon of mass destruction. Terrorists can use it to take out critical infrastructure without breaking a sweat. Aim it at a cellular tower and take out communications for a five mile radius yet no one will have a trace of who did it. How about we just bomb ourself and save the terrorists some effort?




"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

















botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki