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 » Armor » Airbag Defense

Airbag Defense

counter-ied-training

I was shocked to see a recent post on our sis­ter site, DoD Buzz, about a new defen­sive coun­ter­mea­sure to RPGs being devel­oped by Textron. The sys­tem, called TRAPS uses an armored air bag to absorb the impact of an RPG, ren­der­ing it inert.

According to Greg Grant’s story, the TRAPS uses radar to detect the incom­ing RPG and deploy the airbag on the zone of the vehi­cle being targeted.

DT read­ers might remem­ber my mad sci­en­tist friend David Woroner, head of Survival Consultants International, who devel­oped a patent on a multi-​​layered IED pro­tec­tion sys­tem that uses airbags to absorb the blast wave and some of the shrap­nel of an IED in an attempt to reduce the blunt force trauma of the bomb’s concussion.

Here’s a video ren­der­ing of Dave’s system…

 

The key to Dave’s airbag pro­tec­tion that dif­fers from Textron’s is that it detects the IED blast light, which arrives at the vehi­cle well before the blast does and gives the sys­tem time to deploy the airbags before the blast reaches the vehi­cle. I know that Israeli and some US so-​​called “active pro­tec­tion” sys­tems use radar to detect the object com­ing towards it, but with Dave’s sys­tem, the detec­tion is pro­jec­tile agnos­tic since it detects the light of det­o­na­tion (or launch?) and deploys at the speed of light (with fiber optics).

At the end of the day, it’s great to see that folks are begin­ning to approach the armor pro­tec­tion dilemma with more than just lay­ers of cold rolled steel. I hope the JLTV devel­op­ers dial in on this type of pro­tec­tion since it would surely gar­ner advan­tages in weight and deployability.

– Christian

Share |

November 5th, 2009 | Armor, Bomb Squad | 490451 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/11/05/airbag-defense/Airbag+Defense2009-11-05+17%3A34%3A18christian You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit | Keep it Simple » »

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. chrisram says:
    November 5, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    Not sure a sys­tem such as this qual­i­fies as “shocking”.…more like an incre­men­tal upgrade in active defense.

    Reply
  2. JEFF says:
    November 5, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    I won­der if this will work with mul­ti­ple hits or how a mix­ture of RPG and 7.62 rounds will affect it. Sounds inter­est­ing but I’m very curi­ous how tough it can be made.

    Reply
  3. Wembley says:
    November 5, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    So “Dave’s” sys­tem would be use­less against an RPG which hits before exploding?

    Reply
  4. flying fart says:
    November 5, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    soooo.. they used soviet tech­nol­ogy with airbags instead grenades.. not that RPGs are so cheap today that free­dom­fight­ers.. aehmm teror­ists are run­ning with big pak­age around.. dou­ble RPG head aside..

    Reply
  5. Valcan says:
    November 5, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    Freedom fight­ers gen­er­aly arent sup­posed to fight for the right to rape 13 year olds and beat women into sub­mis­sions fart. 

    ———————————————————————————————————

    I just like that peo­ple are try­ing to deal with the blast­wave effects from ied’s. I like Daves system. 

    As for RPG’s it said it could detect flashes from launches. However the sys­tem didnt look like it took up much room so i believe slat armor will still work.

    Reply
  6. Charles says:
    November 6, 2009 at 1:58 am

    I bet Textron did it to avoid deal­ing with people’s patents.

    Reply
  7. Greg says:
    November 6, 2009 at 6:02 am

    I believe if you look at the com­ments on the arti­cle about Woroner’s sys­tem, you’ll see a com­ment from me about TRAPS. They’re being installed on prac­ti­cally any vehi­cle pos­si­ble includ­ing tanks by now. I assume they will be on the JLTV, what­ever con­cept gets cho­sen, because the gov­ern­ment is ask­ing for it.

    Reply
  8. Vstress says:
    November 6, 2009 at 4:40 am

    I guess the radar sys­tem is the best out of the two, on the basis that there doesn’t always have to be a flash of light when an explo­sion under­ground occurs… whereas depend­ing on the fre­quency of the radar sys­tem, even the mois­ture in the com­pressed air in a shock­wave could tech­ni­cally sense the trig­ger of a device, or even a super­sonic object.

    Obviously how­ever, such high sen­si­tiv­ity is point­less… but still, it’s got one less flaw than the light sens­ing system.

    Will be inter­est­ing to see the final cost of the sys­tem. I guess it’s not silly to think that once this sort of sys­tem is deployed, it would not be pos­si­ble to install the same sys­tem using other active pro­tec­tions (even a active armour that is trig­gered by the blast).

    Reply
  9. Dirk says:
    November 6, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    For those not in the know, radio and light waves travel at the same speed (both are elec­tro­mag­netic waves). Thus the assump­tion that the opti­cal sys­tem is faster, purely because it works at a dif­fer­ent part of the spec­trum is moot.

    Reply
  10. Vstress says:
    November 6, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Actually… just one ques­tion… if pos­si­ble to be answered… what is the point of the fibre optic system? 

    Surely a hard-​​wired sys­tem is quicker in that it doesn’t require revert­ing the sig­nal to an opti­cal sig­nal and back to electrical? 

    Anyways… an elec­tri­cal sig­nal trav­els as fast as light — well it’s a frac­tion of a dif­fer­ence in the grand scheme of things. 

    Seems like a bit of overkill! Or am I miss­ing something?

    Reply
  11. freefallingbomb says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:53 am

    Part I : 

    What a bullshit. 

    How is such a device going to function 

    1) in ANY high-​​intensity con­flict, where every TRAPS– or “mad-Dave’s-airbags”-protected vehi­cle and its sen­sor are likely to acknowl­edge “quite a few” flashes and fly­ing pro­jec­tiles all around them per day, or even per hour (per fire-​​fight) ?
    And is a nuclear fire­ball at the hori­zon not going to deploy absolutely all airbags of all vehi­cles within vis­i­ble range, “at the speed of light” ? 

    Or even

    2) in ambushes in low-​​intensity con­flicts, where a sin­gle near miss – delib­er­ate or not – and its pro­jec­tile and launch flame etc. trig­ger ALL the vehicle’s airbags simul­ta­ne­ously, ren­der­ing them use­less for the sec­ond, well-​​aimed shot? 

    Is this maybe just a one-​​off, dis­pos­able device…? 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  12. freefallingbomb says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:53 am

    Part II : 

    Will the hum­ble infantry­man lying under such a TRAPS-​​rigged vehi­cle and fir­ing his assault rifle, his heavy machine-​​gun or his rocket, not be crushed or cat­a­pulted into the open by the unfold­ing airbags, after the sen­sors detected his muz­zle flashes or his rocket only a few cen­time­ters away?
    (He bet­ter seek dis­tance from all kinds of other, “actively pro­tected” vehi­cles as well, to avoid becom­ing their col­lat­eral damage…) 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  13. freefallingbomb says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:54 am

    Part III : 

    Will all U.S. American vehi­cles imme­di­ately stop invad­ing and shoot­ing in the mid­dle of a plain, if their anti-​​ballistic air-​​bags got deflated by the first nearby explo­sions, and wait for replace­ments? No advances with­out softly cush­ioned tanks, the gen­eral says, like padded cells in nut­houses?
    How about stuff­ing U.S. infantry­men into piles of airbags to pro­tect them from I.E.D.s too, until they look like Michelin men (made all of tyres) ? If nec­es­sary, fix their mobil­ity prob­lem with a 15-​​foot exoskeleton! 

    What an utterly U.S. American inven­tion: “No life out­side /​ no sur­vival with­out the pro­tec­tive bubble” ! 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  14. freefallingbomb says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:54 am

    Part IV : 

    How is a bag of air sup­posed to pro­tect against a salvo of E.F.P.s any­way? Needles just LOVE to punc­ture balloons! 

    Or against a stream of equally lethal, small-​​calibre anti-​​matériel rounds (or even sin­gle tank grenades), fired from too far away for their sen­sors to detect any rel­a­tively weak, dis­tant muz­zle flashes?
    Will shrap­nel ( = a shock­ing effect asso­ci­ated with the lat­est I.E.D.s, and evi­dence of on-​​going Iranian sup­port) not pop the whole bal­loon bun­dle at once – and the del­i­cate vehi­cle skins beneath them too? 

    Dumb, dumber and dumbest…

    Reply
    • :) says:
      November 12, 2009 at 5:30 am

      Dear tal­iban or aqaeda figther.
      Inotice tht you for­got why to send your women to schools.
      Your dead friends could tell you what mil­i­tary supe­ri­or­ity means but they died so much in mass of suprise that none of them sur­vived back.
      OH how didnt my bul­let work??? How could his shot just pass my chest??! PAIN ALLAH DOES NOT EXIST AAARRGGHHH.. 

      So next time some­body presents you a way tht they say will kill you.
      Send your wife to uni­ver­sity to study it and tell you why. 

      Dont you ralise they THE TALIBANS are killing you by tak­ing away your free­dom and any abil­ity to defend your­selves by block­ing you edjucation. 

      And btw the women may have their sides but you cant cut of half of the race. Men are to figth and women are to buffer wars from chil­dren by not under­stand­ing. For their dis­abil­ity thay must be respected and given all the mens rigths. Then you just require morally logical(zero tol­er­ance to that just is so or god said so ect.) advance­ment from real decis­sion mak­ers and that fil­ters bad ones of them out just like that.
      Ok this doesnt work even on west­ern coun­tries rigth yet but you are being killed there!! :) :)

      So to the evo­lu­tion­ary veg­etable bye bye..

      Reply
  15. Noah Mayer says:
    November 7, 2009 at 4:53 am

    Oh wow, what is with the ques­tions here? The camera’s/light sen­sors ana­lyze the light and deter­mine if its the right pat­tern to deploy the airbags. It will most likely not deploy to the flash of an RPG, but rather to the light sig­na­ture of the typ­i­cal IED. The design­ers aren’t morons. If it does go off at the wrong times, I’m sure that will come up in test­ing and the mil­i­tary would can­cel orders. 

    I imag­ine that the bags can be turned off with a switch if the dri­ver is in a fire­fight that doesn’t require them (or if a sol­dier is near the vehi­cle with an AT weapon). 

    I don’t get all the une­d­u­cated guesses on how the sys­tem WON’T work when all it takes is a few moments of think­ing to come up with une­d­u­cated guesses to ren­der them moot. You guys are smarter than this.

    Reply
  16. Noah Mayer says:
    November 7, 2009 at 4:57 am

    On shrap­nel pop­ping the airbags.…I don’t think that will be a huge issue unless the fire from a close explo­sion has time to dam­age the bags first. NASA and Bigelow Space have devel­oped inflat­able space habi­tat mod­ules (and in the lat­ter have deployed them in space) that allow large vol­ume in a small pack­age. The inflat­able skin is multi-​​layered kevlar and other exotic mate­ri­als that is built to with­stand micro-​​meteoroids that fly through space at extreme speeds. These airbags are made sim­i­larly, so the shrap­nel won’t dam­age the bags much.

    Reply
    • freefallingbomb says:
      November 8, 2009 at 12:58 am

      To the edu­cated guesser: 

      Part I : 

      .….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….……

      You wrote: “I don’t get all the une­d­u­cated guesses on how the sys­tem WON’T work when all it takes is a few moments of think­ing to come up with une­d­u­cated guesses to ren­der them moot.” 

      Then make an edu­cated guess about how the same sys­tem (mean­ing: The SAME airbag) is sup­posed to be used TWICE in use­ful time! 

      Take “a few moments of thinking” ! 

      .….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….……

      You wrote: “On shrap­nel pop­ping the airbags.…I don’t think that will be a huge issue unless the fire from a close explo­sion has time to dam­age the bags first.” 

      If large, hard-​​skinned air cush­ions effec­tively pro­tect against blast and shrap­nels, then hov­er­crafts should be the most mine– and shrapnel-​​resistant ships of all, even more so than Dreadnoughts… Are they? 

      (Continued)

      Reply
  17. Valcan says:
    November 7, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    Hey jack ass (fart) at any time dur­ring that tri­ade did you watch the video? It isnt just one bag its lay­erd so that when one takes a hit that bag deflects or dis­rups the incoming. 

    This is ment to stop the con­cu­sive force most of all. 

    But this is on par with your usual post. Stuck up, irri­tat­ing, irra­tional, child­ish drivel. 

    If i remem­ber cor­rectly your a euro so i expect child­si­h­ness out of you. 

    BTW to all euros who arent rep­re­sented by fart or his ilk no offense but he’s just a troll and sorry to say most euros who i speak to to often are well opin­ion­ated aholes. 

    PLease prove me wrong.

    Reply
  18. freefallingbomb says:
    November 8, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Part II : 

    You wrote: “(N.A.S.A.‘s Space bungalow’s) inflat­able skin is multi-​​layered kevlar and other exotic mate­ri­als that is built to with­stand micro-​​meteoroids that fly through space at extreme speeds.” 

    But how “micro” is a steel shard or E.F.P. ? 

    http://​www​.mil​i​tary​im​ages​.net/​p​h​o​t​o​p​o​s​t​/​d​a​t​a​/​5​01/...

    http://​paja​mas​me​dia​.com/​f​i​l​e​s​/​2​0​0​8​/​0​5​/​c​l​i​p​_​i​m​a​ge5...

    http://​www​.wired​.com/​i​m​a​g​e​s​_​b​l​o​g​s​/​p​h​o​t​o​s​/​u​n​c​a​t​ego...

    http://​www​.defensetech​.org/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​E​F​P​1​-​w​e​b​.​jpg

    http://​www​.defensetech​.org/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​e​f​p​_​h​o​l​e​.​JPG

    http://​www​.wired​.com/​i​m​a​g​e​s​_​b​l​o​g​s​/​d​a​n​g​e​r​r​o​o​m​/​i​mag...

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4aNto1NiGcY/Rj4_YWs4OkI...

    (Continued)

    Reply
  19. freefallingbomb says:
    November 8, 2009 at 1:01 am

    Part III : 

    You wrote: “These airbags are made sim­i­larly, so the shrap­nel won’t dam­age the bags much.” 

    What if I.E.D.‘s “only” blow Abram tur­rets off the hulls: Are we finally safe then? 

    http://​data​.prime​por​tal​.net/​m​1​_​i​r​a​q​p​/​r​o​b​_​m​1​_​b​r​oke...

    http://​www​.defense​-update​.com/​i​m​a​g​e​s​/​M​1​A​2​_​b​l​o​w​n.j...

    Or if an I.E.D. sim­ply throws the entire, 60 tons heavy Abrams off the road, like a toy? 

    http://​lh5​.ggpht​.com/​_​L​1​A​Q​i​t​L​I​b​d​4​/​R​z​p​O​1​J​2​G​g​Y​I​/​AAA...

    Enjoy those pictures: 

    http://​www​.prime​por​tal​.net/​m​1​_​d​a​m​a​g​e​d​_​i​r​a​q​.​htm

    I did.

    Reply
  20. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:18 am

    Part I : 

    Yesterday, I answered to the poster “Noah Mayer” with a tri­par­tite post. I’m not talk­ing about my first post here, about the airbags them­selves.
    The last two thirds of my answer to “Noah Mayer”, which con­tained lots of links to Internet images of E.F.P.-made holes and even destroyed Abrams tanks in Iraq, to illus­trate the futil­ity of dress­ing up U.S. mil­i­tary vehi­cles (of ANY size and weight!) in fluffy pink bal­loons (“airbags”), sim­ply… “disappeared”. 

    I’ve seen this hap­pen before, else­where, and I tell you something: 

    OUR DEAR OLD ” DEFENSE TECH ” IS D-​​E-​​A-​​D , A-​​S-​​S-​​A-​​S-​​S-​​I-​​N-​​A-​​T-​​E-​​D !!! 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  21. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:20 am

    Part II : 

    Ironically, it may even be our own “fault” = that of us read­ers and posters. “Defense Tech” was get­ting dan­ger­ously pop­u­lar and suc­cess­ful exclu­sively thanks of us: A “tiny, amuck run­ning wheel” in the oth­er­wise flaw­lessly func­tion­ing, rigidly con­trolled, single-​​minded Military Machine.
    “We should never have happened”. 

    Quoting The Matrix’s “Architect” :
    ” (We) are the even­tu­al­ity of an anom­aly, which, despite my sin­cer­est efforts I’ve been unable to elim­i­nate from what is oth­er­wise a har­mony of math­e­mat­i­cal precision.” 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  22. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:21 am

    Part III : 

    First of all, the amount of OUR COMMENTS was /​ is such, both in quan­tity and qual­ity, that it became by far the most sub­stan­tial and infor­ma­tive part of “Defense Tech”. Now it was only a short mat­ter of time until true pro­fes­sional com­men­ta­tors were lured to this slowly grow­ing hotspot (jour­nal­ists, defense experts, top brass, minor politi­cians, arms com­pa­nies’ spokes­men who diglad­i­ate other arms com­pa­nies’ spokes­men, finally some System dober­mans on sales) or, “even worse” : The first curi­ous main­stream read­ers, to dis­cuss and expose the whole rot­ten­ness of the U.S. American military-​​industrial com­plex to the World.
    But self-​​criticism and ambi­tion are a no-​​no in the 1 % fas­cist and 99 % sheep­ish U.S.A., that’s why the per­fid­i­ous Jewish /​ Zionistic edi­tors of “Defense Tech” cat­e­gor­i­cally erased SIX YEARS worth of our com­ments = A LEGACY !!! under the guise of a “new”, TOTALLY KACKY layout! 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  23. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:24 am

    Part IV : 

    After the Wanat deba­cle I also sensed, with great sur­prise and delight, that an increas­ing num­ber of U.S. American read­ers (even dyed-​​in-​​the-​​wool patriot Byron Skinner!) “dared” to think more crit­i­cally and out­spo­ken, even bit­ter, about their own Military (their own supe­ri­ors?) and their wars, their strik­ing incom­pe­tence and their Third-​​Worldish lev­els of cor­rup­tion, when appro­pri­ate. Criticizing armed pub­lic clerks is as nor­mal as breath­ing to all non-U.S. Americans, but I’m vaguely aware of what it takes for any U.S. American to pub­licly take off his blink­ers!
    “Dangerous dis­sent was breed­ing”, “the civil­ian Insurrection is orga­niz­ing itself”, “the sheeples are get­ting a con­science”, etc., in “Military​.com” ‘s para­noid minds, and they know how impul­sive the U.S. American men­tal­ity is, so they gave the order to box this free-​​thinking Web-​​site into con­for­mity again. 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  24. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:32 am

    Part V : 

    Ugg: “Defense Tech” ‘s edi­tors even admit that they cen­sor all SELF-​​DEFINED “spam” now!
    That’s how these cow­ards always start to steal our peo­ples’ free­doms: By attack­ing the low­est com­mon denom­i­na­tor, to pre­tend that they’re act­ing in the public’s best inter­est!
    Next they will block the trolls from post­ing ( = ME . So sad), then the haters (hi there!), then all com­ments with war-​​morale low­er­ing con­tents ( = ME again, read my sec­ond phrase above), then all polit­i­cally uncor­rect thinkers (because of Obama the Peace Angel…), then all French read­ers (still me), then all the other for­eign posters ( = “sus­pects”, “hos­tiles”, “prob­a­bly Axis of Evil agents”), then all Muslims liv­ing in the U.S.A. (“born ter­ror­ists”), then the most sub­tle crit­ics of “Defense Tech” arti­cles & of “Israel” and finally the last sur­viv­ing anti-​​invasions, anti-​​Military, anti-​​Nazi, paci­fistic “Fatherland trai­tors”, etc., until “Defense Tech” is finally the voice of its mas­ter again. 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  25. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:33 am

    Part VI : 

    In the future, “Defense Tech” ‘s other “deon­to­log­i­cal promise”, that of “no more polit­i­cal dis­cus­sions”, will also be expanded to ALL dis­cus­sions of broad strate­gies, indi­vid­ual mil­i­tary lead­ers and arma­ment com­pa­nies (because of “civil lia­bil­ity”…), wanna bet? 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  26. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:34 am

    Part VII : 

    Basically, “Defense Tech” is going down the same drain like the glo­ri­ous for­mer dis­cus­sion forums under each news arti­cle from the U.S. American Internet por­tal “Yahoo!” (from where I erred here, after being banned from all other Web-​​sites on the Internet) : In 2004, shortly before the “re-​​election” of W by rigged Diebold vot­ing machines, some of “Yahoo!” ‘s daily dis­cus­sion boards had more than 3.000.000 posts (word of hon­our!), QUITE a rep­re­sen­ta­tive sam­ple of the entire U.S. American pop­u­la­tion, and MOST OF THEM burst­ing with revolt. That’s when the System (speak: The Neocons) became aware of the Internet’s real power and pulled the plug on “Yahoo!”, afraid of its own public’s opinion: 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  27. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Part VIII : 

    First, they made it easy for Reptards and Jews to time out and then to delete all crit­ics’ accounts (with E-​​Mails and Instant Messengers and every­thing!), then, as soon as we cre­ated new ones, they asso­ci­ated all our accounts /​ nick-​​names with our com­put­ers’ I.P.‘s, then they reduced the max­i­mum length of all com­ments to thwart the flux of con­struc­tive, intel­li­gent infor­ma­tion (just like “Defense Tech” does now, allow­ing only brain­less, telex-​​style answers = BURPS ! ), then they removed all Bush– and Jew-​​bashing com­ments far too quickly for any­one to pos­si­bly have flagged them, ESPECIALLY if they con­tained links (just like the two last parts of my answer to “Noah Mayer”), etc. etc., and at last, when every other lowly trick also failed to hold the anti-​​Führer dam, they sim­ply elim­i­nated all dis­cus­sion boards from their news arti­cles: “As they were set up, the Yahoo! News mes­sage boards allowed a small num­ber of vocal users to dom­i­nate the dis­cus­sion. Neil Bundy” (Neil Bundy, you spine-​​less poop!). 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  28. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 12:38 am

    Part IX : 

    Trust me entirely on this prog­no­sis for “Defense Tech” : We trolls are Society’s most reli­able instru­ments to explore the outer con­fines of Freedom of Speech!

    Reply
  29. mod contracts says:
    November 9, 2009 at 9:43 am

    Im a bit of a new­bie here so par­don my rel­a­tive igno­rance here. Im going to steer clear of all the mad­ness in these com­ments — i just want to say that i think that this airbag impact sys­tem is a superb inno­va­tion that should be deployed en masse before any more men are lost unnesesar­ily. Hopefully the UK Ministry of Defence have some­thing sim­i­lar up their sleeve.

    Reply
    • freefallingbomb says:
      November 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm

      To all super­flu­ous newbies: 

      You wrote: “i just want to say that i think that this airbag impact sys­tem is a superb inno­va­tion that should be deployed en masse before any more men are lost unnesesarily” 

      Yeah, right: After mil­lenia of per­fec­tion­ing fortresses and armour, at last some Anglo Einstein dis­cov­ered that “the softer ( = airbags), the harder”. 

      One really has to con­cede that you tried every­thing to defeat the “insur­gents in their last throes” !

      Reply
      • Colonial-Marine says:
        November 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm

        Do you even under­stand the con­cept of this or any sort of active defense sys­tem you ter­ror­ist lover? The advan­tage over ERA and other active defense sys­tems is less risk to friendly sol­diers around the tank. It may not work against newer RPGs and other anti-​​tank weapons, but it will work against your typ­i­cal PG-​​7 series rocket.

        Reply
  30. JustAGuy says:
    November 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    A blast wave is a pres­sure wave trav­el­ing through a gas. When it hits the airbag, it will loose a small amount of energy as the wave imparts a force upon the air bag mate­r­ial. Given that the air bag had to be wrapped up com­pactly, and inflate quickly, I would imag­ine its mass per square sur­face area will be quite low. On the other side of the air bag is a gas, which is what the pres­sure wave was trav­el­ing through to begin with. I can’t see how this sys­tem will do any­thing to dampen the pres­sure wave or reduce the affects of the blast wave. It is kind of like tap­ing bal­loons to your head instead of using earplugs. It has the poten­tial to stop shrap­nel, but the cur­rent armor can eas­ily do that.

    Reply
  31. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    Part I : 

    The only rea­son why we’re all hav­ing this con­ver­sa­tion here is because (like sooo many times…) 

    1) this “Defense Tech” arti­cle above 

    AND

    2) the orig­i­nal “DoD Buzz” arti­cle it refers to 

    say NOTHING about any suc­cess­ful tests that were actu­ally car­ried out to val­i­date this new tech­nol­ogy (just read them!). “Defense Tech” only ends with a wish­ful sigh from its editor. 

    Please dis­tin­guish clearly between such infin­ites, imper­fect and future tenses as “being devel­oped”, “ren­der­ing it inert”, “TRAPS is under­go­ing OSD spon­sored tests” etc., that were used, and the more fact-​​rich past tenses of the same phrases (“Were devel­oped”, “ren­dered it inert”, etc.) that were con­spic­u­ously ABSENT in the two texts! 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  32. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Part II : 

    The ONE AND ONLY (par­tially) con­clu­sive phrase in the DuD arti­cle says: “Textron says the tests have so far been suc­cess­ful and the airbags defeated numer­ous live RPGs fired at dif­fer­ent angles from both short and long ranges.“
    But rock­ets (and anti-​​tank grenades) aren’t I.E.D.‘s. (unlike mines, booby-​​traps and I.E.D.s they even require the pres­ence of some­one to fire them), and whole Abrams tanks ( = not just their tracks and tur­rets!) have been vio­lently tossed around by I.E.D.‘s, as I tried to show to the poster “Noah Mayer”. R.P.G.-7’s don’t have that effect. 

    That’s why even the most advanced main bat­tle tanks remind me con­stantly of giant dinosaurs being help­lessly exter­mi­nated by the first small mam­mals hid­ing in earth holes… 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  33. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Part III : 

    Why did nobody yet bother to place a sin­gle fuck­ing 15,5 cm artillery grenade 5 metres besides a H.M.M.W.V. or M.R.A.P. all draped in airbags, bal­loons, pil­lows, inflat­able mat­tresses and soap bub­bles etc. and det­o­nate it, to see how high and far the engine block had flown away? (I call that “het­ero­sex­ual weapons research”) 

    But is spend­ing money on such a test really nec­es­sary…? Hint: A decent Muslim truck bomb leaves a crater up to 4 meters deep. 

    Would Hitler have wanted to hear about such a mir­a­cle weapon, even as the cur­tain fell over his Reich?

    Reply
  34. freefallingbomb says:
    November 9, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    Nuclear war-​​fighting doc­trine holds that nuke war­heads are to be fired in pairs against hard­ened struc­tures, arriv­ing suc­ces­sively, so that the sec­ond nuke can exploit the struc­tural weak­nesses cre­ated by the first explosion. 

    That’s also my sug­ges­tion for the Taliraqis in regard to M.A.D. (mad airbag Dave) : If U.S. American mil­i­tary vehi­cles start fea­tur­ing those airbags, pro­duce a sequence of TWO I.E.D. explo­sions along the dri­ving lane, spaced only a few meters + milli-​​seconds away from each other (depend­ing on the vehi­cles’ aver­age speed: Convert their esti­mated km/​h into m/​s and mul­ti­ply this num­ber with the dis­tance in meters between your two I.E.D.‘s) : 

    1) To deplete the entire pro­tec­tive sys­tem with the first explosion 

    and

    2) to destroy the can of Nazis with the sec­ond explosion. 

    Happy hunt­ing! (I want videos!!!)

    Reply
  35. freefallingbomb says:
    November 10, 2009 at 3:33 am

    Wait a minute: This whole thing can’t pos­si­bly work, NOT EVEN ONCE = NOT EVEN AGAINST THE VERY FIRST I.E.D. !!! 

    Part I : 

    Let’s say that the airbag fully open(s) after 10 milli-​​seconds (and I’m already being over-​​optimistic: I delib­er­ately skipped the system’s detec­tion and reac­tion time, and I also ignored the fact that the much smaller and softer civil­ian car airbags take a full 20 – 30 milli-​​seconds to inflate, NOT 10 milli-​​seconds!).

    10 milli-​​seconds of (super-​​fast) deploy­ment time is 1 /​ 100 of a second. 

    How far does a shock wave travel in 10 milli-​​seconds (or: In 1 /​ 100 of a sec­ond) ?
    Can an I.E.D. explod­ing 10 meters away from a Nazi vehi­cle (10 meters = more unre­al­is­tic atten­u­at­ing cir­cum­stances!) reach the vehicle’s skin faster than the airbags deploy? 

    Let’s do the maths… or is any­body afraid of that?! 

    (Continued)

    Reply
    • Rocketman says:
      November 11, 2009 at 2:44 am

      Your actu­ally begin­ning to “start to approach the real­i­ties” Ive been work­ing on for almost nine years. I would think you would cover alot of ground in nine years, ok? So, why not give me the same? I can’t give away the farm, but, I will try to answer what is ok to say w/​o destroy­ing the sys­tems secrets. I will tell you that optics vs. radar (yes both em ener­gies) < the ques­tion is what kind, and how fast? First of all, sim­ply put, “radar must be sent out, col­lect a hit/​return and bounce it back to the reciever. Whats faster, read­ing light or wait­ing for radar? Best, Rocket

      Reply
  36. freefallingbomb says:
    November 10, 2009 at 3:35 am

    Part II : 

    The det­o­na­tion wave of good old T.N.T. trav­els at 6.900 meters /​ sec­ond. (World-War-Two’s explo­sives already burned at rates of 9.000 meters /​ sec­ond and faster, but let’s for­get even that!) 

    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​h​o​c​k​_​w​a​v​e​#​D​e​t​o​n​a​tio...

    6.900 meters per sec­ond equals 6,9 meters per 1 /​ 1.000 second, 

    OR 69 METERS IN 1 /​ 100 OF A SECOND = 69 METERS IN THE SAME TIME WHICH THE AIRBAGS NEED TO DEPLOY ! 

    But we assumed that the I.E.D. exploded from “only” 10 ( T-​​E-​​N ) meters away, not from 69 meters away! 10 meters is only 1 /​ 6,9 of 69 meters, mean­ing: The shock wave hits the vehicle’s skin 6,9 times faster than the airbags deploy!!! 

    And since any amounts (big or small) of T.N.T. burn always with the same speed, my friends, the heroic Muslim Nazi-​​killers, can even use the SMALLEST POSSIBLE I.E.D.‘s to defeat those airbags! 

    Are we being fed shitty fairy tales again by the great “Defense Tech” edi­tors? (Hoo hoo, is any­body in the house?)

    Reply
  37. Rocketman says:
    November 11, 2009 at 2:29 am

    Hi There, This is that crazy guy. After rant­ing like a lunatic, you actu­ally started to think. I was won­der­ing if that would hap­pen. Im glad it has. There are sev­eral facts that should be at least addressed, as some peo­ple have asked. Let me try to do so with­out hand­ing out the “worx.” (more)

    Reply
  38. Rocketman says:
    November 11, 2009 at 2:33 am

    JustAGuy begins to approach the fluid dynam­ics of the prob­lem at hand. Freefallingbomb begins to con­sider time (there’s more there…keep going.) Someone com­mented on elec­tric­ity mov­ing @ “near” light speed, why “optics?” good ques­tion also. These things have all been approached, and to a “cer­tain point” math­e­mat­i­cally, the­o­ret­i­cally been proven out. (more.)

    Reply
  39. Rocketman says:
    November 11, 2009 at 2:35 am

    As Christian *an odd name for a “jew­ish con­trolled media mon­ger, lmao! jok­ingly calls me “mad.” Its actu­ally from an even fun­nier story, that I gar­nered the name “rock­et­man.” Now THAT was funny…(more)

    Reply
  40. Rocketman says:
    November 11, 2009 at 2:39 am

    Mr Bomb, youre onto “some­thing” when you finally stopped going whacko, you started to ques­tion “time to deploy?” < good start. The other things I saw, like pla­nar sur­fac­ing strength and light speed elec­tric­ity are also good ques­tions. Rest assured, though not 100% per­fect, has “proofs” that are done by a per­son that is…how shall I put this? Way beyond any­one in here, includ­ing myself. Keep think­ing folks. Best, “Rocket”

    Reply
  41. Rocketman says:
    November 11, 2009 at 2:48 am

    sug­ges­tion, keep work­ing the math of each com­po­nent that would have “to be addressed.” Consider that a fair start­ing point, rest assured, there are answers that work out through­out.…. it took a loong time. (I wish I could say whom was help­ing the troops “behind the scenes,” suf­fice it to say he’s much smarter than any­body whom is cur­rently even con­sid­er­ing any of this. So far, I have his atten­tion. I will also give this, its “more than just bags.” Best, Rocket

    Reply
  42. freefallingbomb says:
    November 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Part I : 

    To the poster “Pocketman” : 

    1) A THOUSAND THANKS for hum­bling us with your PRIMITIVE (SELF-)MYSTIFICATIONS ! 

    2) I didn’t “stop rant­ing” or “start think­ing” or any­thing, I just pro­posed the solu­tion of dis­abling the airbags with TWO OR MORE SUCCESSIVE I.E.D.‘s first, BEFORE real­iz­ing that the airbags couldn’t even work against ONE SINGLE I.E.D., so: No need to waste more than one I.E.D. on any Nazi panzer.
    Can’t you really dis­tin­guish between “one” and “two”, or between “one” and “many”, with­out con­stant corrections? 

    (Continued)

    Reply
  43. freefallingbomb says:
    November 11, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Part II : 

    3) How about answer­ing me what hap­pens if an I.E.D. goes off not an unre­al­is­tic 10 meters away, but only from a proper dis­tance of 2 meters? Then the airbags would have to fully deploy not in 10 milli-​​seconds, but only in 2 milli-​​seconds!

    But NOT EVEN A BULLET leaves a rifle bar­rel that fast, from ham­mer drop to muz­zle exit! (Adieux, “active defense” ! That’s why you’ll also ALWAYS be able to knock over an entire Abrams sim­ply with a pow­er­ful blast from a nearby bomb or I.E.D.! If only “Defense Tech” allowed me to share these sexy pic­tures with you…) 

    4) Say ‘Hello!’ to your “genial, super-​​secret airbag inven­tors behind the scenes” for me, will ya? They’re LATE for two wars, while plumb­ing around their improb­a­ble product!

    Reply
  44. Rocketman says:
    November 11, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Just curi­ous cause I don’t quite get why you bring up ole kraut armor? Is that in rela­tion to the com­ment “two wars late,” hehe.… You know what gen­eral? From detec­tion to fully deploy (and keep in mind, I did say theres “more that you aren’t going to see.”) is less than 2 ms, Im work in uS, *microsec­ond is an SI unit of time equal to one mil­lionth (10–6) of a sec­ond. Its sym­bol is µs. Believe it or not, thats the TRUTH, and it delin­eates your “multi det­o­na­tion” ploy, gosh, gimme a “smal­lll amount of credit?” I haven’t been rude to any­one. Best, Dave

    Reply
  45. Rocketman says:
    November 11, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    I also wanted to “Salute all that have served.” On this most pre­cious of days and take time to thank all those whom have suf­fered or sim­ply not come back. Thank you Fellas’, every one of you.….…. My lifes work is to send sol­diers home whole to their fam­i­lies. I pray every­day that I can cre­ate some­thing to help make that come true. Many Humble Thanks, Sincerely, Dave

    Reply
  46. freefallingbomb says:
    November 12, 2009 at 2:10 am

    To the poster “Rock Man” : 

    You wrote: “From detec­tion to fully deploy (and keep in mind, I did say theres ‘more that you aren’t going to see.’) is less than 2 ms, Im work in uS, *microsec­ond is an SI unit of time equal to one mil­lionth (10–6) of a sec­ond. Its sym­bol is µs.” 

    Let’s say that those airbags are only 50 cm large. If they fully deploy in 2 MICRO-​​seconds, as you say, not in 2 milli-​​seconds, then they open at a speed of 250.000 meters per sec­ond, or 900.000 km/​h, or Mach 735 (detec­tion and sig­nal pro­cess­ing speed delib­er­ately ignored, to give them a lit­tle bit more time to inflate).
    Say: Are you that “famous airbag inven­tor behind the scenes” you referred to? You cer­tainly are!
    What else did you invent today? 

    ( NURSE !!! )

    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
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    Recent Comments
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      The US Military should hold annual fashion shows. The Army...
      Zandor
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'd also like to point out, that soldier systems has been...
      a1189
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Has to do with traverse speed. If the target is close then the...
      Charles
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Totally forgot about astrogation. Star maps loaded into a...
      Charles
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      freefalling: -The Germans used beam-riding during WW2 and it...
      Charles
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      batvette: A lot of JSF money was spent before the meltdown....
      Charles
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
      Phantom Works is Boeing is it not? I dunno what...
      Charles
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
      Senator McCain says, “ Sticks and stones may break my bones...
      Alton
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
      Jimbo thats pretty much all the british government...
      Valcan
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      I hope so; flexible armor may save lives because...
      Marcase
    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
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
  • 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