http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/ Engadget Comments for Anti-projectile net could protect soldiers http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
This is the only way to protect our currency on the world market. If all oil producing countries go Euro, the Dollar will be phucked.

Terrorism, Islam....it's all a smoke screen.

]]>Sep 24th 2007 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
screw americans in need, single mothers, homeless, health care,.. $400,000 missiles are where tax payers want their money spent!

ya, I'm sorry I don't even know what my point is at this point... it's a cool device.]]>Sep 24th 2007 1:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/So there is a loss to import from some chemicals but not even near the $400K asked for the rockets, nope, most of that money that's spent on ordinance lands in companies like those owned by cheney and bush's family..

Also all those calculations of how much the occupation/destabilization takes don't subtract the money the army would require when the soldiers were at home I bet, they get payed then too you know, and I don't think they subtract the normal running cost that would be spent anyway from the expense the iraq occupation/destabilization creates when they throw around figures. (I might be wrong though)

Not that it's not stupid and messy and pointless and creating more issues than solving them of course.
]]>Sep 24th 2007 10:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/I see this being turned into a movie...

]]>Sep 24th 2007 7:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
step 2 - launch grenade


idiots.]]>Sep 24th 2007 1:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
And a stick would never set it off. It needs something traveling at a high velocity.]]>Sep 24th 2007 1:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
Blank missiles would do the job really good.]]>Sep 24th 2007 1:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
unfortunately some men dressed all tidy and in black will come knockign on your door to deliver the award.]]>Sep 24th 2007 1:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Another + is that bulky and impractical "Cage Armor" can be omitted from vehicles. This is also big, because Cage armor:
- Can't be on the vehicle while the vehicle is being transported.
- Requires (on a HMMWV) ~50 man-hours of complicated welding to mount, more on an M1A1 (the US' main battle tank).
- Hurts visibility and mobility (Armored HMMWVS are pathetically under-engined as is, let alone if you add another ton of metal cage [outboard of the two axles, no less]).
- Does not contribute to the US' "Hearts and Minds" strategy.
So these 'active defense' measures are really a godsend. ]]>Sep 24th 2007 9:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 1:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
What I would love to see is a fine spider-silk type web that shoots out, envelops the projectile, and reduces it to a smoldering goo sac. ]]>Sep 24th 2007 2:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
2 senarios here:
RPG hits vehicle, penetrates vehicle, explodes in vehicle causing the inside of the Humvee to turn into a slaughterhouse of hamburger as the shrapnel bounces around inside the vehicle.

RPG hits net and is detonated before it hits armor, shrapnel his armor, Maybe some shrapnel makes it through the armor but for the most part it is contained outside, people inside are probably a little deaf, but otherwise alright.

I for one would welcome option #2.

That said I dont see how this stops them from shooting a second time...]]>Sep 24th 2007 4:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 5:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 2:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 2:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 3:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
Basically the protection system would potentially be much more deadly to dismounted soldiers nearby than any random RPG fired by an insurgent poking around a corner.]]>Sep 24th 2007 3:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 4:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 4:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 5:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 5:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
Excellent point, but when going from A to B and you have no dismounts, you also have no threat from RPGs. In fact, the RPG threat is largely non-existant to the vehicles that would look to use this system (Light Armor Vehicles) due to their shoddy construction and the poor employment by the enemy. Additionally, even when traveling with no dismounts, you still aren't buttoned up and have guys hanging out of hatches mounting .50 cals and providing visual security, so there is still a danger of intercepting projectiles near the vehicle, or even the danger from the backblast itself.

When you have dismounts in Military Operations on Urban Terrain (MOUT) situations, most systems have a 'kill button' or even a way to set sectors where the system is only looking at the front 180 and your dismounts stay to the rear. But in MOUT, the enemy attacks from all directions. The enemy will just wait for you to drive by and then shoot from behind (but likely miss).

All the surveys we conducted with Marines, and my informal discussions with buddies who are deployed responded with two points: 1. RPGs aren't a significant threat, 2. the money is better spent on anti-IED technology]]>Sep 24th 2007 6:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
It would be good if you stopped talking about your work in an open environment. Interested people are watching this.]]>Sep 24th 2007 9:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/
]]>Sep 24th 2007 6:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 24th 2007 6:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/If so it would pay itself with it's first use.]]>Sep 24th 2007 7:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/And about the hitting it twice, those RPG's need some reloading time and you need to carry heavy grenades and once you fired one you better get the hell out of there and not stand fishing heavy ammo out of your backpack and take your time reloading, while you are nervous as hell, so I don't think the concept of hitting it twice is so critical in practice.
]]>Sep 24th 2007 10:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/24/anti-projectile-net-could-protect-soldiers/Sep 25th 2007 3:39AM