Comments on: Bomb-Zapper, Back to Drawing Board

By: H. Kent

H. Kent — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:27:09 +0000

The platform was rejected because it is barely roadworthy, not protected from blast or fragmentation, vulnerable to small arms fire and the expensive part which directs the detonation field will be destroyed on the first shot and must be replaced, if it is even possible to repair. Those also appear to be solid forklift tires, so there will be low reliability of the electronics due to vibration. It needs a capable isolation suspension, armor protection and off paved road capability.
This is a good concept, but poor execution; most ambushes are initiated by an IED followed by small arms and RPGs. Often, two or more IEDs will be placed at once…one for after the troops dismount to repair their “detonator”.
Fight the tactics, not just the weapons…

By: Bill B.

Bill B. — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:21:26 +0000

Well, seems that there is little to no interest here in the US on realistic IED defeat systems.
I now have a concept evaluation contract with the Israel Army, they are enthusiatic, I have worked with them before.
Meanwhile as the Pentagon dithers, again, our kids are getting blown up in Iraq daily !
Life goes on.
Bill B.

By: Bill B.

Bill B. — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:43:31 +0000

I am currently doing a patent search for a IED initiatin system that I have developed (concept ).
Who in the ARMY is the right person to dicuss my invention with ?
Alternatively a private Co with real interest.
BB.

By: Turner

Turner — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:11:44 +0000

If it could be done smaller and cheaper, without a drop in performance, like an EMP parabolic dish, someone more than likely would already have submitted that particular invention. But no one has, and so a tool that could reduce our casualties and result in less letters home to Ma and Pa is hanging out on a shelf. It would likely be ridiculously easy to mount this thing on the back of a 7 ton, but why do that when you can delay the process and save some precious money for something that looks shiny?

By: emmanuel kaindoh

emmanuel kaindoh — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:20:16 +0000

thanks to the brains in the defece department,more over the pentagon branch.Its one of the surprise of the rest of the world in case one of the allies want to mess around.Bravo the the US ARMED FORCES DEPARTMENT.

By: q

Wed, 31 May 2006 20:20:42 +0000

you don’t need something that big, it has already been demonstrated that an EMP can be directed using parabolic reflectors, (satellite dishes) and can be set in a frontal sweeping motion, and will detonate all IEDs from a safe distance. the ones I’ve seen are small enough to be carried by a single person, but if you want it to have a useful amount of power it should be mounted to the front of some of the current vehicles and given a larger power source.

By: DOSRanger

DOSRanger — Wed, 24 May 2006 15:08:56 +0000

Why would the company not use a standard vehicle frame that is in service? The stupidity of the JIN manufacturer is what will cause lives. Military does not like adding new parts to the inventory, especially vehicle parts. Looks to me your could mount this on an existing 5 ton frame?

By: fronten

fronten — Sun, 14 May 2006 20:26:51 +0000

” to detonate explosives at a distance” you don’t need such a clumsy device.
you could also use the good old grenade launcher for such. at least I don’t see the advantages of this approach.

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 13 May 2006 19:32:36 +0000

The problem is that the REMFs responsible for DOD acquisitions sit behind a desk all day long so they can afford to delay this project for a few years since their lives aren’t on the line. Don’t ya’ just love the DOD acquisitions program!

By: Chris WO

Chris WO — Fri, 12 May 2006 19:08:24 +0000

So they rejected the life saving machine based on its looks.…nice.