Comments on: The high-tech future for the Army

Chief Scientist Thomas Killion talks about Army R&D efforts, high-tech soldiering and the outlook for robots and drones.

[TechNewsJunky]

A "weapon" that detects explosives and guns

would be nice.
One that really works.

If we could only stop car bombs...and guns from firing (as directed).
"Super" Defensive weapons are where it's at. Things like sound waves that imobilize people. Those types of things I'd like to see - non-"destructive weapons".

[sal-magnone]

Only partially effective

Non-destructive weapons can protect (for a time) but not deter. They need to be combined with lethal but minimally collatorally destructive weapons.

A good example is the US Small Diameter Bomb, 250lbs of explosives and a jam resistant GPS guidance unit does the work of a 1000lbs pound (by improving accuracy) but generates allot less damage at a distance. You can also carry 4x as many and engage more targets.

[sal-magnone]

important to consider as well

One thing this article didn't talk about is how very much a success this program has been.

It gets allot of bad press. The GAO cuts into it as well, though that's its job. People said almost the same exact things about the f-16, f-18, M-1 and the Bradley back in the early 1980s (only worse). They turned out great. It just takes time.

[chrisgtl]

test

test

[dondarko]

here is a thought

consider the program that has developed a tiny fly robot that can record video and audio in the field. (http://crave.cnet.com/8300-1_105-1-0.html?keyword=robotic+fly)

Now how do we find Bin Laden and other terrorists? Simple. Infiltrate the locals for intel with these things with fairly concealable piece of technology.

Now I am against big military spend and buildup (there are better things we can spend money on, personally), but something of this magnitute that can help us needs to be pursued.

just my thoughts...