Comments on: Pentagon Skimps on IED Defense?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:41:56 +0000

Cluetrain, I too have been reading this web page for almost a year. The only thing that bothers me is the little comments here and there that can appear to be “ignorant” or maybe a little over “opinionated”. The overall theme on just about everything is pretty good thoe. Dont take any of these comments personaly, there just constructive criticism. :)
BTW, this is a very good site.

By: Suns

Suns — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:49:27 +0000

I have been visiting this site for about a year and a half and I have to agree that many articles are beginning to be slanted more towards using facts for the author’s opinion rather than facts for us to decide.
The government, adminstration and others do need a lot of work… but they’re not trying to do harm to their own.

By: Ares

Ares — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:27:08 +0000

ClueTrain
no, I swing by this site virtually everyday, and have done so for over a year now.
Are you telling me that this article had no biased to the “left” or “right”? If you think this article was completely unbiased then I think its you who neeeds to read a little deeper.
The fact is, day in and day out this site critizes the war in Iraq and president Bush, as well as the cost over-runs in a lot of programs.
All i’m saying is the best news, is unbiased news.

By: Noah Shachtman

Noah Shachtman — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:16:40 +0000

To follow up on what Pedestrian just said: one of the reasons IEDs are a problem is Iraq because their component parts are so plentiful. Garage-door openers, kids’ toys, walkie-talkies — anything working with the RF spectrum has been used as an IED trigger.
In comparison, there aren’t a whole lot of commercially-available devices transmitting in the infrared bands. So stopping radio frequencies does more than stop one variety of IED. It stops the vast majority.
nms

By: Pedestrian

Pedestrian — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:08:54 +0000

>I hear jammers don’t work so well on pressure
>detonated devices or ones with IR triggers.
One method disabled means alot. Radio frequency is convenient for use at long distance, but when that is disabled, the user is forced to use other less effective systems. Pressure detonated IEDs are passive and the user lacks control, while IR would only be useful at a limited distance. If some one here thinks that jammers have no meaning while counter measures are used, that person is an idiot for not recognizing disabling such methods, leaving only other less effective methods.

By: ClueTrain

ClueTrain — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:34:09 +0000

To Trojan, Ares and Mike.
Obviously this is your first time to this site eh? DefenseTech are comparing the economic costs of two weapons systems.
One that is real and effects tactical and operational land warfare and the other which is at the present time is a non-existent, big business pipe dream. Please refrain from commenting if you lack a clue.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:38:31 +0000

I dont mean to pile on but the I in IED stands for improvised meaning no two are really alike and they are always changing so 20billion would only fix todays IED while tomorrows would be in need of another 20bill like Trojan mentioned on some of tommorows. Also some of those jammers and stuff have side effects and mess with other equipment like our UAV’s small ones that are crutial to our effort its a balance. Besides I dont think the next time we invade a country planning occupation we will just leave all of those ammo dumps to be looted we will either guard or destroy and move on. Iraq is overflowin with bomb material it was a learning expeirence thats why combat expeirence is priceless for future and present campains.
Personally I would lean more towards armor and heavy equipment. Now I fully believe in the Future Combat System just more of a door kicking force then let the Heavy stuff rolls in to crush hold and crush. I think we could go with light weight equipment setup to take add on armour turning light to heavy. In light they could be sent in fast then once thier follow up could heavy them up to for the long slog. But I am holding my judgement on FCS until I see what the FCS end product looks like then make a determination.

By: Big D

Big D — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:13:41 +0000

Look, calling for a “Manhattan Project” for such a broad threat–and meaning it literally, not as “we need to get creative and come up with something”–just doesn’t make much sense.
There are so many different types of IEDs, so many different triggering mechanisms, that one solution isn’t going to do everything. In addition, I doubt that we’re going to face many conventional enemies (like China) that are going to present a large IED threat. While we’re fighting this campaign, the rest of the world goes on.
Ultimately, the best way to stop IEDs? To use Iraqi troops, police, and civilians to help us acquire intel and prosecute terrorists and insurgents before they can deploy IEDs in the first place. Until then? If anybody can come up with ideas that sound promising, they should be funded… pretty much period.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:12:22 +0000

About the destroyers… I would think our present destroyers are well suited for taking out modern enemy ships. That along with our airpower and submarines would seem to be an extremely tough obsticle. Maybe someone with more knowledge on navy warfair could inform us better. There is defiantly nothing wrong with keeping our navy the most elite.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:58:42 +0000

To Author: Yes, these post are becoming more and more “leftist”.
Please study and use common sinse before articles are posted. Its started to get anoying.