Defense Tech: Camera Shoot


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

Camera Shoot

"In the near future, a soldier who needs a quick look over the next hill will be able to aim his rifle skyward, fire a grenade-sized reconnaissance device and instantly receive imagery on his pocket computer," writes Defense News' Barbara Opall-Rome.

"No special training or adaptation equipment is necessary" to fire the Firefly, from Israel's Rafael Armament Development Authority, or Israel Military Industry's Reconnaissance Rifle Grenade.

Grunts just fire the disposable "ballistic cameras" from "standard-issue M203 grenade launchers attached to M16 or other assault rifles," and then wait for the pictures to come back, 8 seconds and 600 meters later.

In this way, the ballisitc cameras a lot like the pint-sized drones which have become so popular among American company commanders in Iraq.

In 2002, the U.S. Army had 25 year-long Raven unmanned mini-planes; today, company and platoon chiefs are using about 800 in combat.

"Why the boom?" I asked in Wired a few months back.

Eyes in the sky keep soldiers from getting killed. "The way you used to get intel on the battlefield was you fought for it, sending your squad into a building, forcing your way in," says ~~former~~ Army captain Phillip Carter. Now company commanders can see around corners and over hills - a God's-eye perspective that once was the domain of generals, with their Predators, manned spy planes, and satellites.

The Ravens are simple to use -- one of the best-known operators is a cook. But, with no guidance system to operate, the ballistic cameras would be easier still: "point and shoot," to use a cliche. Which means the ability to see a battlezone from above could shift from a general to a captain to a buck private, rifle in hand.

Comments

I think that they are good ideas.If some one can toss a video grenade into a room before going into it that is always a good thing. The only thing that I say is that they should add a small explosive charge to it, just so that when it is done trasnsmitting it won't fall into the wrong hands so that they can take it apart and figure out how to jam the signal.

Posted by: usschallenger at June 4, 2008 09:55 PM

I think it should be rechargeable and reusable, so little kids can play with them. In most of the battle zones where we send US troops, a lot of homes are flattened by grenades, mortars, etc. So, let kids play with the cool little drones.

Posted by: jimbo92107 at September 14, 2005 03:19 AM

This seems like a huge waste of time/money. the average grunt will never use one his commander will say they are just to expencive to use and with budget cuts and all and by the time you shoot round. the pic gets back 8 sec later and your commander's aid gets the info from intel whom then "advises" your commanders aid who give the info to the commander(and gets it all wrong) who then radios the gunny who then tells the cpl who .. wait 2 days have passed and every thing has changed. Where this is good is a quick over shoot of the enemies base.. wait we use sat's for that Nvm. Yea these are a brilliant piece of junk and good for the kids to play with.

Posted by: Raven at August 7, 2005 10:52 PM

So, the "basic grunt" now will have to carry a PDA with screen big enough to watch the images, (gprs attached so he can send data to fire support units) Medtech? Yup. Water, food, ammo, a small tent... HUD in the helmet, ceramic plates in the west, cameras on rifles, cameras in grenades, Radio, cables, batteries, TAG gear? Yeah those too... laser-sights and "pointers"... and a 16 wheeler to carry all this stuff while he fights.

The "wired" soldier concept is getting way too sophiasticated for actual combat.

Then comes a guy with minimum armor and a good old AK and ruins your day.

Still it can be a good add-on... but not for a line soldier. You WILL need training, not to use the device, but in small units tactics, as what to use FOR. Old infantry teams had grunts, a heavy gunner (MG), an anti armor guy, and a medtech.

As precision missiles and TAG technology improves, you need no anti-tank gear...just a laser and a radio to call the suport fire. So you can switch this guy for the above mentioned operator... (or even an ECM-ECCM soldier if the trend escalates so fast.)

Posted by: Kevin at August 5, 2005 03:56 AM

I've worked with Predators and other UAVs. The real problem with the smaller UAVs is that the operator (a) has to have some training (even if it's just the basics of RC flight control) and (b) has to have a reasonable safe area of cover to operate from. This device negates the need for both of those. The operator will already have training on how to fire the weapon for range and target. The operator can also fire this in the middle of battle, and then retreat to cover to analyze the resulting images. Great example is a group of operators pinned behind cover that need to see who's firing at them (ie where are they and how many, what cover are they behind). They lay down temporary cover fire while one operator steps out, fires this device and then retreats back to cover. They then receive images of the battlefield and the locations of their targets. Great device.

Posted by: DJ at August 4, 2005 12:29 PM

I reckon RC (remote controlled) choppers or devices such as the X-UFO should be perfected, made cheaper and smaller...then fitted with cameras. That way the military will have reusable, accurate and reliable means of retrieving surveillance info quickly and easily. The X-UFO for instance can move the same way a chopper can, but is quieter and easier to control.

Posted by: eujinn at August 3, 2005 08:45 PM

TOC (Total cost of ownership) is something I am very familiar with being an IT guy. The TOC on a item like this is a bit like calcutating the worth of insurance. If you never need it, it's a huge waste of money, when you do it's worth dozens of times more than it's cost.

I say unless the cost of this item is very much higher than traditional UAVs they should roll them out as the use of something that can be at the fire team level is likely so high (How much is Pvt. Joe worth again?)

Posted by: The Cenobyte at August 3, 2005 01:56 PM

This needs to be a throwaway, cheap enough so we don't have to stint on their use.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at August 3, 2005 11:11 AM

The question is its cost, and reusability. It is likely cheap but if it is only useful several times, the life cost might be worse than compared with UAV even those cheap like CyberBug. If that is not a problem, it may be worth a try.

Posted by: Pedestrian at August 2, 2005 10:36 PM

Camera Shoot

Comments

Post a comment