DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • '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
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • 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
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • 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
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bomb Squad » Upgrade for IED Task Force?

Upgrade for IED Task Force?

Guys in uni­form bitch a lot. Especially when two mil­i­tary groups are tack­ling related jobs. Handling bombs is no dif­fer­ent. The Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) guys think the engi­neers are con­stantly inter­fer­ing in their work. The engi­neers say the EOD dudes are snobby and too secret squir­rel for their own good.
small_talon_screen.jpgBut, around Baghdad at least, the group caus­ing the most fric­tion seems to be the Pentagon’s “Joint IED Defeat Task Force.” While EOD techs have to scrounge around to buy their own belts, the Task Force has a bil­lion dol­lar bud­get. And while bomb squad­ders spend a year in train­ing, I saw com­pletely green mem­bers of the Task Force wan­der­ing around bomb sites, pick­ing stuff up at ran­dom. The engi­neers and the EOD techs took bets on whether or not they’d sur­vive their tours of duty.
Not that the Task Force folks had much nice to say about the bomb squads. “EOD has it pretty easy,” one mem­ber told me.
For most sol­diers in Iraq, the Task Force’s main con­tri­bu­tion was “5-​​and-​​25.” It’s a mantra which means that sol­diers should check 5 meters around their vehi­cles when they first get out, and then do a 25 meter sweep after that.
Behind the scenes, and back in the States, the Task Force is also doing a bunch of tech­nol­ogy devel­op­ment to try and slow down the seemingly-​​endless waves of impro­vised bombs hit­ting American forces. Several Task Force mem­bers have com­pared the effort to the Manhattan Project. But with the num­ber of explo­sives on the rise, there’s grum­bling in Washington that the Task Force doesnt have the juice or the bud­get to jus­tify the com­par­i­son, the L.A. Times notes. There’s talk of replac­ing the Task Force, cur­rently headed by a one-​​star gen­eral, with a new group that would have “an active-​​duty three-​​star gen­eral or admi­ral, or a retired four-​​star officer.”

Some mil­i­tary offi­cials com­plain that the Pentagon has made lit­tle progress in get­ting the White House to pres­sure agen­cies such as the CIA, FBI and Department of Energy to devote more resources and full-​​time per­son­nel to the anti-​​IED effort. One dif­fi­culty they cite is that a one-​​star gen­eral tends to wield lit­tle influ­ence in the gov­ern­ment hier­ar­chy.
“It’s just amaz­ing how long it takes for the bureau­cracy to seri­ously tackle an issue, when some things should hap­pen lickety-​​split,” said a sec­ond senior Defense official.

THERE’S MORE: It’s Friday, and I’m feel­ing punchy and reck­less. So here’s a pic of me try­ing to han­dle an IED left­over.

Share |

November 4th, 2005 | Bomb Squad | 175232 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/11/04/upgrade-for-ied-task-force/Upgrade+for+IED+Task+Force%3F2005-11-04+18%3A51%3A13dupont You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Israeli Jets in Gaza Soundclash | War (Sim) and Peace (Sim) » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. max says:
    November 4, 2005 at 3:21 pm

    I always thought it was safer to do the 5 meter search BEFORE I got out of the humvee. But that was just me-​​my gun­ner often pointed out that he didn’t have the option.….….

    Reply
  2. Noah Shachtman says:
    November 5, 2005 at 10:37 am

    Dan:
    I’ll do that. But my rec­ol­lec­tion from talk­ing to senior offi­cers about this is that American forces has kept pace with the bombers, find­ing about 40% of the explo­sives before they go off. But the over­all num­ber of bombs has dou­bled in the past year.
    nms

    Reply
  3. dan says:
    November 5, 2005 at 1:11 pm

    Noah
    Thanks. What hap­pens if the num­ber of bombs dou­bles again as we enter phase III of this war?

    Reply
  4. 'Pops" says:
    November 5, 2005 at 6:44 pm

    I’ve read about many TTPs to defeat IEDs (jam­mers, backscat­ter xray, etc.)… Is any­one inves­ti­gat­ing the cav­i­ta­tion effects on pro­jec­tiles and powder-​​based devices caused by ultra-​​sonic waves? Creating voids would change the energy dis­tri­b­u­tion, mak­ing the device less lethal — or would set it off pre­ma­turely at a safe dis­tance from our per­son­nel. Any com­ments?
    ’Pops’

    Reply
  5. Evan Barnett says:
    November 6, 2005 at 5:55 pm

    a quick response net­work would be effec­tive at catch­ing cul­prits as long as the enemy was caught in the act there­fore look and act on the big city exam­ple were peo­ple are caught on cam­era 75 times a day and kill the basterds.

    Reply
  6. jez says:
    November 6, 2005 at 10:43 pm

    mmmm… Brit Forces have been using a 5 & 20m checks for years. This was done espe­cially after expe­ri­ence in Northern Ireland.. I guess down south in Iraq, its sim­i­lar.
    You always do ya 5m checks.. when­ever ya stand still for longer than 2 mins. if there for a longer, 20m checks.. pain in the ass, but the amount of time ya get blown up in train­ing soon sorts that one out!!
    essen­tial. I thought you guys were using this too… any­way I’m glad you are now!! But is that the only thing that the “Joint IED Defeat Task Force” has come up with… ???

    Reply
  7. Bill Tyrrell says:
    February 24, 2006 at 3:51 am

    Oh, for­got to tell you HERO, email me at:
    diver5​3​3​7​@​yahoo.​com

    Reply
  8. UAV John says:
    February 24, 2006 at 5:39 am

    I have not read all the com­ments yet but excuse the igno­rance. I look at the ter­ror­ist video’s they take when con­duct­ing their attacks on ogr​ish​.com and it seems that they are mak­ing mis­takes, like get­ting out of the HMMWV after an IED goes off, then guess what another goes off. I just got back from Iraq and it seems there is no col­lec­tive knowl­edge data­base that every­one can learn from. It should be the duty of every offi­cer or senior NCO to con­stantly review data and inform troops. Another exam­ple, most IED’s are emplaced dur­ing rush hour, not after cur­few. Does any­one know if the IED task­force is try­ing to do this.

    Reply
  9. UAV John says:
    February 24, 2006 at 5:44 am

    I mean we are mak­ing mis­takes. It is very late at might.

    Reply
  10. Dave says:
    February 28, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    Just a cou­ple of com­ments on the Joint IED Defeat TF (now Organization or JIEDDO):
    * Pictures posted by Noah of the E5 and CPT sup­pos­edly of the JIEDDTF are incor­rect — those two per­son­nel were not mem­bers, regard­less what you heard or they told you.
    * JIEDDO pro­vides sem­i­nars (not brief­ings) to ALL units from Brigade level down to indi­vid­ual Soldiers and Marines. They pro­vide linked sem­i­nars (read: dis­cus­sions on TTPs, etc.) to cor­re­spond­ing staffs, com­pany lead­er­ship and the Commanders and CSMs.
    * These sem­i­nars are based on the lat­est TTP from AFG and IZ from mem­bers of the JIEDDO who have just returned from the­ater. They con­duct oper­a­tions with units, CEXC, WIT, etc., and develop briefs/​seminars to relay this infor­ma­tion to units get­ting ready to deploy.
    * IMO, The prob­lem is that we have ceeded the ini­tia­tive to the enemy in Iraq/​AFG. The insur­gents has dis­cov­ered he has free­dom of maneu­ver to do pretty much what he feels, and emplace IEDs when and where he chooses. We are reac­tionary, and react­ing to his actions instead of tak­ing the offense and caus­ing the insur­gent to react to us.
    * It is up to the com­mand and Soldier/​Marine what they do with this infor­ma­tion or if they even lis­ten dur­ing the aver­age 3–4 days we spend with each Brigade Combat Team. “You can lead a horse to water …“
    * IMO, we have become too pre­dictable and easy to tar­get. Units, par­tic­uarly com­bat ser­vice sup­port units exe­cut­ing the major­ity of the con­voys, have a “FOB men­tal­ity” and are unwill­ing to forgo hot chow, inter­net cafes, and show­ers, etc., to change how they do buis­ness. They still think of them­selves as “log­gies” and their lead­er­ship has not dri­ven into their heads they must be war­riors and able to fight and defend them­selves if/​when attacked. Combat arms units have also become com­pla­cent in some aspects (not always, nor with all CA units), not occu­py­ing and own­ing their ter­rain, and tak­ing the ini­tia­tive from the enemy. Hunting the IED emplacer, bomb maker and cells can be done — and sucess­fully so. But it requires a dif­fer­ent mind­set than “force pro­tec­tion”. However, it is dif­fi­cult given the numer­ous OTHER mis­sion sets they are required to exe­cute (CA, MEDCAP, nation build­ing, etc., etc.).
    * EOD per­son­nel are the tech­ni­cal experts at ren­der­ing IED’s safe. God bless them for what they do. They are respon­ders — not pre­ven­ters.
    * JIEDDO is not EOD — it is a com­ple­men­tary effort. Never intended to com­pete with or over­shadow. However, we can’t just wait until we find an IED to take action — by then it’s too late — it’s been emplaced. JIEDDO is try­ing to get units to be proac­tive and take offen­sive mea­sures to pre­vent emplace­ment and not be “vic­tims” if attacked.
    * From some­one much more intel­li­gent than I: “There is more to counter-​​IED oper­a­tions than describ­ing the minu­tia of explo­sives detec­tion, and under­stand­ing tac­ti­cal intel­li­gence gath­er­ing is more than describ­ing the tech­ni­cal spec­i­fi­ca­tions of the lat­est sen­sor sys­tem.“
    * Bottom Line — there are a lot of hard work­ing and ded­i­cated pro­fes­sion­als at JIEDDO doing their best to defeat the IED threat. Be care­ful how one tries to paint the organization

    Reply
  11. Taylor Sealy says:
    March 14, 2006 at 11:24 pm

    Perhaps some­one could be check­ing out the use of sta­tic elec­tric­ity gen­er­a­tors to set off the IED’s at a dis­tance from a con­voy, etc. I under­stand that muni­tions and fire­works plants go to great lengths to elim­i­nate sta­tic elec­tric­ity which can set the explo­sives off. I don’t know how large a field could be gen­er­ated or if out­rig­ger poles or other means could chan­nel the field ahead of the vehi­cle. For car and sui­cide bombers an armored gate might be devised through which they would have to pass and which could set off the charge at a loca­tion of our choos­ing. This is more of a research idea, but is not so high tech that it would take years to develop. Since I didn’t see it men­tioned among the pro­posed ideas, here it is.

    Reply
  12. S. M de Gyurky says:
    May 22, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    There is noth­ing com­pli­cated in the issue of the IEDs. Any old, pre Vietnam Special Forces oper­a­tive can explain how to elim­i­nate this pain to our troops. But no one in the Army or Industry is inter­ested in solv­ing this.
    There is a lot of money to be made in con­tract­ing, thrash­ing, travel (col­lect­ing fre­quent flyer bonus miles), going to meet­ings, and above all research­ing arti­fi­cial limbs and man­u­fac­tur­ing them. When there is money, noth­ing will be done. After all, if you solve the prob­lem: that’s it! No more need for fund­ing and travel, no more need for meet­ings.
    If you want to know about me, look for my book on ama​zon​.com.
    “The Cognitive Dynamics of Computer Science” by Szabolcs Michael de Gyurky. It will be pub­lished by Wiley Interscience and is endorsed by the IEEE. It tells you how to build com­puter soft­ware cost effec­tively like I did at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/​California Institute of Technology for 25 years. I’m a retired US Army offi­cer with 3 years of com­bat duty in Vietnam (5th SFG, 101st, MAT I-​​5, and the 173rd Abn. Bgde.) During my six years of enlisted ser­vice (1958–1964), I was the demo­li­tion­ist engi­neer on ODA-​​13, 10th SFG (Abn), 1st SF in Bad Toelz, Germany.
    Yes troops, we need not take casu­al­ties from IEDs. You only need a few smart guys to solve this prob­lem, who know their jobs.
    Mike

    Reply
  13. Greg Sr. says:
    July 18, 2006 at 2:52 am

    My great­est fear of the newer IED Jamming devices, Duke, etc., is that they work at a much higher power out­put. The folks that sell these say that there is no prob­lem. It takes a set of six fre­quen­cies ran­domly picked from a data­base of a very wide spec­trum. That’s great, you don’t shut down all commo and these things “hop” at about a mil­lion times a sec­ond. The ques­tion no one will answer is, “What is the per­cent­age of unin­ten­tional det­o­na­tions and at what range?“
    Let’s say that a cell phone is being used as a trig­gerind and det­o­nat­ing device. Obviously the would be on the same fre­quency. One pos­si­ble sce­nario is that you are 5 feet away from the IED, while the trig­ger man is say, 300 meters away. If your out­put is high enough, and at the nat­ural res­o­nance fre­quncy of the oscila­tor (crys­tal) in the det­o­nat­ing device, guess what, you meet your maker and Ahkmed’s cell phone rings. I don’t believe our troops should be beta test­ing this kind of stuff with­out ALL of the data being given to them.
    Maybe we should “up-​​armor” bul­doz­ers and send them down the streets stag­gered like snow­plows ahead of con­voys. Use the jam­mers to blow any­thing on the side streets after the major­ity of the con­voy has passed. Beter yet, do it by sat­telite, You could blow them where ever they are hid­den and at the time of “man­u­fac­ture.” That would cause a sharp drop in bombers morale if they never knew when the device may explode…
    Just sign me, Old Dinosaur Paratrooper who longs for the good old days of just firefights.

    Reply
  14. Felix Piere says:
    August 20, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Position:-Capt. LA City Fire Dept., retired
    A Job:-Directed Crash Co. @ Van Nuys Airport
    Crash Truck Equipped with Hi-​​pressure noz­zles on top of cab and bumper level on each side, front.
    PURPOSE:- Hi-​​pressure Water Sweep road­ways of loosley cov­ered Ied’s and land mines. Hi-​​pressure streams will uncover them, loosen their elect. con­tacts and dis­arm them.
    TEST: Bagdad Airport should have one. Improvise Humdees with tanks and hi-​​press. pumps.

    Reply
  15. Rito says:
    September 8, 2006 at 9:53 am

    On 09/​12/​06 thru 09/​13/​06, there will be a JIEDDO con­fer­ence in DC. A topic of dis­cus­sion will be the IED’s. One con­cept that is cur­rently being used is to jam the fre­quen­cies. However, why not reverse that process and send out numer­ous fre­quen­cies that will unex­pect­edly det­o­nate the devices, where ever they are within range of the fre­quency gen­er­a­tor. Perhaps, an IED will explode while in tran­sit or in the assem­bly process. Certainly this is worth a try and it wouldn’t be very expen­sive. Just a few lab tests to prove proof of con­cept then field test in the cur­rent con­flicts. Simple is better!

    Reply
  16. GBL says:
    September 27, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    call me stu­pid, but most of these com­ments shouldn’t be posted on an open inter­net forum.
    who gives a damn if the AIF and oth­ers can get infor­ma­tion about our C-​​IED TTPs from other sources…why the hell would you want to make it eas­ier for them by tak­ing about it here?

    Reply
  17. William Tyrrell says:
    October 12, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    As a recently retired Navy Master Chief of 30 years and EOD Tech for the last 20 of those 30 years, I would just like to point out, as did another indi­vid­ual that, although noth­ing clas­si­fied is posted in the com­ments, a LOT of use­ful infor­ma­tion could pos­si­bly be gleaned from some of these com­ments by our ene­mies. I would just like to ask that those who make com­ments, and those who screen and post them think about what infor­ma­tion they could unwit­tingly be giv­ing to the enemy that can be used against us. Since my early days in EOD in the mid-80’s until now, I have always been of the mind that we are too free with infor­ma­tion. Some may accuse EOD of being “secret squir­rel” but I believe we should not adver­tise our capa­bil­i­ties and lim­i­ta­tions. More than ever, this is an “EOD” war and I think too many indi­vid­u­als have got­ten caught up in a desire to be cool and look cool and adver­tise cool­ness instead of qui­etly doing our job and not show­ing the world how we do it so counter mea­sures can be for­mu­lated. Thanks for the oppor­tu­nity to have my say.…

    Reply
  18. Ben says:
    January 7, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    I agree on the secu­rity issue with post­ing to much info. But look at the orig­i­nal post. ELECTRONIC ENGINEER! Can you say insur­gent fish­ing for info. If he was an elec­tri­cal engi­neer don’t you think he could spell! Insurgents open source every­thing on the inter­net. Beware. Noah don’t let your jour­nal­ism inter­fer with integrity!

    Reply
  19. Thomas Renteria says:
    January 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    I am cur­rently serv­ing in Iraq and over the course of the last cou­ple days my life has been saved by army equip­ment twice, and the Duke being one of the devices that saved my life and the lives of every­one in the vehi­cle, my ques­tion for any­one that may know the answer to is ‚how do I go about find­ing the dash 10 or main­te­nance man­ual on this device so that we can prop­erly main­tain it?

    Reply
  20. C Field says:
    January 28, 2007 at 1:09 am

    Thomas Renteria, email me on AKO @ christopher.field and I will help you. have some good con­tacts and access that you can ben­e­fit from.

    Reply
  21. NAVY EOD TECH says:
    March 7, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    Military​.com, please take off any and all ttp’s that we are doing in coun­try to keep all mem­bers safe!!!!!!!
    If you do not screen the coments made by igno­rant per­sons, you will be the cause of the deaths of many mem­bers of the U.S. Armed Forces try­ing to uphold jus­tice. Then please explain to their fam­i­lies why the ulti­mate sac­ri­fice was made. Loose lips or should I say fin­gers.
    v/​r
    NAVY EOD TECH

    Reply
  22. steeve says:
    March 8, 2007 at 6:57 am

    for ied jam­mer see: http://​cymtronic​.club​.fr/​b​r​o​u​i​l​l​e​u​r​_​0​2​6​.​htm

    Reply
  23. Jim Miller says:
    May 17, 2007 at 12:04 am

    To Thomas Renteria, the CREW sys­tems are clas­si­fied secret and should not be dis­cussed nor repaired by unau­tho­rized per­son­nel. This, you of all peo­ple should know and not be writ­ing about it on the inter­net. Does COMSEC and OPSEC mean noth­ing to you?
    Jim Miller
    CREW FSR

    Reply
  24. Anonymous says:
    August 30, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    I absolutely can’t believe the folks post­ing
    info here that can aid our ene­mies in mak­ing life
    more dan­ger­ous for our peo­ple on the ground in the sandbox.…Geezus
    Raven
    T32873

    Reply
  25. Anonymous says:
    August 30, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    I absolutely can’t believe the folks post­ing
    info here that can aid our ene­mies in mak­ing life
    more dan­ger­ous for our peo­ple on the ground in the sandbox.…Geezus
    Raven
    T32873

    Reply
  26. Anonymous says:
    August 30, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    I absolutely can’t believe the folks post­ing
    info here that can aid our ene­mies in mak­ing life
    more dan­ger­ous for our peo­ple on the ground in the sandbox.…Geezus
    Raven
    T32873

    Reply
  27. Violence Is Not The Answer says:
    December 17, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    Army Engineers are tool­bags. All they’re good for is get­ting their Talons stuck in craters so EOD Team Chiefs have to don bomb suits and save their equip­ment.
    Any Engineer who things he has any knowl­edge of EOD sim­ply because he goes to an EOCA course should ride on the Buffalo arm the next time they roll out on route clear­ance. Suckas.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    Recent Comments
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      Just look at this " picture " for a moment. The...
      Zandor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      I know LOSAT seemed awesome but wasn't it cancelled? I...
      JimboJones
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
      Yes you're quite right, I get to witness...
      JimboJones
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'm disappointed. When are they going to make clothes...
      Nadnerbus
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part II : * USMC attempts to make a single seat (no...
      freefallingbomb
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part I : I think we're not the only ones on the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : Guided missiles will also be programmed to...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part I : To the poster "Will" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      Yeah, I don't get it. The "Dragon...
      Ptsfp
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage