Robots for Air Force Protection

Roland Piquepaille writes "During a demonstration held in San Antonio on August 6, twelve robots intended to protect bases and people were shown to Air Force security directors and to 230 other security professionals. In "Robots display force-protection prowess," Air Force Link tells us the story. "Demonstrations included one robot that crawled up walls and across ceilings, another that clambered over rocks with six rotating legs and a third that wriggled like a snake through a pipe." This summary contains more details, including photos of the "Wall Crawler" climbing a wall and of Hexapod, a robot with six rotating legs walking over a pile of rocks."

Comments

Re:Bah, '80s technology!

[The Other White Boy]

i can't freakin believe this god modded as Interesting. I wish I could mod moderations as Funny.

Re:Bah, '80s technology!

[The Other White Boy]

err, got modded. keyboard moved under my hands.

money for robots but not airliners?

[segment]

Senator Chuck Schumer blasted the Bush administration for not taking the steps to equip passenger planes with weapons deterrent systems. Money to equip planes with devices that could stop someone from using a missile against it, nah let's play with robots. This being said just when the FBI busts a European businessman for trying to purchase a SAM (surface to air missile) that he allegedly was going to resell to terrorists.

According to Schumer "The threat facing commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles here in the United States is no longer theoretical"

So again I state... Waste money on pork-barrel shit like this, or but it to proper use?

Full article on Schumer & view on this matter

Terrorist Missiles vs. Airliners

[Mad Man]

was Re:money for robots but not airliners?

Senator Chuck Schumer blasted the Bush administration for not taking the steps to equip passenger planes with weapons deterrent systems. Money to equip planes with devices that could stop someone from using a missile against it, nah let's play with robots. This being said just when the FBI busts a European businessman for trying to purchase a SAM (surface to air missile) that he allegedly was going to resell to terrorists.

According to Schumer "The threat facing commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles here in the United States is no longer theoretical"

from http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030813a .asp

Terrorist Missiles Versus Airliners
by James Dunnigan
August 13, 2003

An Indian arms dealer was caught trying to illegally import a Russian SA-18 Igla shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile to an FBI agent posing as an Islamic terrorist. Terrorists trying to take down airliners with portable missiles has been a threat for a long time. Actually, over the last thirty years, it's been a reality. Some 29 commercial aircraft have been shot down by such missiles. However, the downed aircraft have been small, and most of these tragedies have taken place in Africa. The wars in Africa are the worst on the planet, so violent that most journalists avoid them. For three decades, this has kept the use of portable missiles against civilian aircraft off the front page.

Larger airliners, like the Airbus's, and 757s, 767s and 747s, have not been brought down because these missiles were not designed to take on aircraft with such large and powerful engines. While these missiles were originally intended for use against jet fighters operating over the battlefield, the reality turned out to be different. The most likely targets encountered were helicopters, or propeller driven transports. These aircraft proved to be just the sort of thing twenty pound missiles with 2-3 pound warheads could destroy. Against jet fighters with powerful engines, the missiles caused some damage to the tailpipe, but usually failed to bring down the jet. This was first noted during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where the Egyptians fired hundreds of SA-7s at Israeli A-4 light bombers. Most of the A-4s, with their 11,187 pounds of thrust engines, survived the encounter. Larger jets, like the F-4 and it's 17,000 pound thrust engines, were even more difficult to bring down. Smaller commercial jets, like the 737 or DC-9 (each using two 14,000 pounds of thrust engines) have proved vulnerable. But a 757 has much larger engines with 43,000 pounds of thrust, and the 747 is 63,000. Moreover, the rear end of jet engines are built to take a lot of punishment from all that hot exhaust spewing out. Put a bird into the front of the engine and you can do some real damage. But these missiles home in on heat, and all of that is at the rear end of the engine.

If terrorists target helicopters and smaller turboprop commuter airliners, or business jets, they are likely to take down aircraft better than half the time a missile is used. This takes into account poorly trained missile operators and defective missiles. And a lot of the missile operators will be poorly trained, and, like November, 2002 incident in Mombassa, using missiles built over two decades ago. They won't be using any of the Stingers the U.S. gave out in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The custom battery packs in those missiles gave out in the 1990s. It's a lot easier to get Russian missiles, and fresh batteries for them.

Another option for terrorists is to use anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) against larger airliners. An ATGM is more accurate and hitting a 747, taking off, in an engine or the main fuel tank between the wings, there is a

Re:Bah, '80s technology!

[The Other White Boy]

i actually meant to post the correction anonymously. however, your little diatribe took up more room than both my posts combined, only to reiterate the point i was making, which is that the moderation system is broken. it's not my fault nobody modded it offtopic.

christ, calm down.