Comments on: Camera Shoot

By: usschallenger

usschallenger — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:55:31 +0000

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.

By: jimbo92107

jimbo92107 — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:19:14 +0000

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.

By: Raven

Raven — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:52:59 +0000

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.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 08:56:07 +0000

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.)

By: eujinn

eujinn — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:45:35 +0000

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.

By: The Cenobyte

The Cenobyte — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:56:07 +0000

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?)

By: Walter E. Wallis

Walter E. Wallis — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:11:49 +0000

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

By: Pedestrian

Pedestrian — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:36:22 +0000

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.