Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Grenade-Style Wireless Camera For Combat

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:28 PM
from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
The Military Technology
nk497 writes "A new wireless camera called the I-Ball is being developed to be shot into locations using a grenade launcher so troops can see what lies ahead. The I-Ball sends real-time, 360-degree video back to soldiers while it's flying through the air and when it lands."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Grenade-style wireless camera to give troops eye o by nk497 (1345219)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Grenade-Style Wireless Camera For Combat 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • overkill (Score:5, Funny)

    by RemoWilliams84 (1348761) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:29PM (#25788053)
    Why not just shoot the grenades in there. Then you'll know what lies ahead (bodies).

    • Re:overkill (Score:5, Funny)

      by bev_tech_rob (313485) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:31PM (#25788089)
      ...or just add an explosive to it....will be able to see the surprise on their faces before they are blown to bits...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Shakrai (717556)

      Why not just shoot the grenades in there. Then you'll know what lies ahead (bodies).

      Yeah but it might be good to know if those bodies are enemies, civilians or friendlies before you frag them ;)

      My million dollar question: What's to stop your opponent from figuring out which frequencies this device transmits on and jamming it and/or targeting it with anti-radiation weapons?

        • Re:overkill (Score:5, Informative)

          by CodeBuster (516420) on Monday November 17 2008, @03:08PM (#25790787)
          One should never underestimate the ability of militias or irregular fighters to adapt and acquire advanced weapons or technology. For example, the Tamil Tigers Air Force [wikipedia.org] have in recent years surprised and embarrassed the Sri Lankan government by acquiring and modifying several light aircraft for bombing missions. The regular Sri Lankan Air Force and Army, despite being equipped with relatively modern fighter jets and anti-aircraft artillery, have been unable to stop continuing attacks of jury rigged bombers run by a bush league air force.

    • Great placement of this comment, considering the FP.

    • Hostages, explosives on site... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by denzacar (181829) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:53PM (#25788515)

      ...sensitive equipment on site, element of surprise, recon mission...
      The list is long.

      Are you one of those guys that, when playing Counterstrike, chucks grenades inside killing all the hostages and then runs into the room spraying it with bullets, only to be knifed in the head once you run out of ammo?

    • Re:overkill (Score:5, Funny)

      by Thanshin (1188877) on Monday November 17 2008, @01:00PM (#25788617)

      The real problem will come when the first soldier holds a grenade to his face and while everybody says "cheeeese" blows his head off.

      • Re:overkill (Score:5, Informative)

        by maz2331 (1104901) on Monday November 17 2008, @01:21PM (#25788963)

        Good idea if it helps to avoid blowing up non-combatants, and useful for knowing where to call in the 500 pound bomb if necessary.

        As a general rule, it is always advisable to avoid barbequeing women and children who aren't involved in the fight if it's at all possible to do so. It's counterproductive and feeds the enemy's propaganda machine.

      • WTF is a bad guy? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kris Thalamus (555841) <selectivepressure@nOSpAm.gmail.com> on Monday November 17 2008, @01:38PM (#25789221)
        It really bothers me to hear an adult use the term "bad guy" to refer to a real person. It seems to be a recent American trend. Bad guys are characters found in silly action films and fairy tales.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by AceM2 (655504) *

          Hence the quotation marks. I'm sorry you have issues understanding what a bad guy is. It's a person (a "guy") who is bad. Do you need me to break it down further?

          • Re:WTF is a bad guy? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Kris Thalamus (555841) <selectivepressure@nOSpAm.gmail.com> on Monday November 17 2008, @02:10PM (#25789829)
            Yes, I wouldn't mind if you did break it down further. I feel that terms like good and bad are usually poor ways of summing up the motives that lead to international conflict. Using stock heros and villains is intellectually lazy enough when writing fiction. People who accept a children's story grade narrative to assess political situations scare me.

              • Re:WTF is a bad guy? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by CodeBuster (516420) on Monday November 17 2008, @03:17PM (#25790967)

                Don't tell me you don't understand what a "bad guy" is. I'm not going to sit here and argue about what the target actually is. To the fighter on the ground, the target is a bad guy. Why sit here and worry about terminology?

                This is one reason, among many, why the American Military does NOT want a return to the draft. They do not want lefty intellectual types who are going to sit there in the middle of fire fight and agonize over whether or not to pull the trigger or, even worse, argue with their officers. In combat soldiers follow orders or they get themselves and their fellow soldiers killed, plain and simple. If someone can't or won't pull the trigger when ordered then they should do themselves and our soldiers a favor and not enlist in the military.

              • Re:WTF is a bad guy? (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Kris Thalamus (555841) <selectivepressure@nOSpAm.gmail.com> on Monday November 17 2008, @03:41PM (#25791297)

                Why sit here and worry about terminology?

                I'm alarmed by the trend of childish terms being used to discuss grave and complicated situations.

      • Re:overkill (Score:5, Funny)

        by kungfugleek (1314949) on Monday November 17 2008, @01:54PM (#25789519)
        Next week's headline: US Military invents a grenade with a "Surrender" button. Throw the grenade, and if the enemy wants to surrender, they can simply press the button and the grenade deactivates. Maybe it opens up and dispenses little handcuffs to all of them and a gps showing them where the nearest US POW camp is. That way, they can all cuff themselves and use the GPS to find the nearest surrendering station to check themselves in. Maybe it'll come with a little PDA so they can register their favorite meals and preferred accommodations and check off special needs like "wheelchair accessible", "wake-up call", and "preferred method of torture".

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by AceM2 (655504) *

              Obviously the figure was an obvious exaggeration. If I had the exact number I would have referenced it. You obviously missed the point.

              • Re:overkill (Score:5, Insightful)

                by amRadioHed (463061) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:55PM (#25790569)

                The number of decimal points is extremely important in determining the validity of your point. The reality is that civilian deaths are far more common than you would have us believe.

  • "Being developed" = "Hey, I got an idea" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jfengel (409917) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:31PM (#25788117) Homepage Journal

    From TFA:

    âoeWe have overcome some significant technological challenges in developing the I-Ball technology,â said Paul Thompson of Dreampact. âoeAlthough it is in its early stages, we are very excited about the technology's potential to help our troops to be better prepared for battle.â

    In other words, "We had an idea, and we've got no idea how to actually implement it, but if the MoD gives us a bunch of money we'll happily spend it."

    Maybe the UK MoD is better than the US DoD about not funding projects just because some legislator is owed a favor, but I wouldn't bet on it.

  • Now they really know you're coming... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AceM2 (655504) * on Monday November 17 2008, @12:35PM (#25788169) Journal

    If the "bad guys" didn't already hear you coming in, they really know when that ball comes flying in the room! Seriously, it's going to take a minute to analyze the feed and on the ground we don't have that time luxury. While there might be a few isolated cases where it could be useful, I'm not sure what they are.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by capt.Hij (318203)
      I was assuming that infantry soldiers would use it after they shot up a building. It would be nice to see what damage you inflicted before going in. By that time the folks inside probably have a good idea that they have visitors. The article itself seemed jsut as focused on armor which you generally do not use to sneak up on anybody.

  • A no-deposit/no-return drone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus (253617) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:37PM (#25788223) Homepage

    I sure hope these things are less than $100... hell, less than $10 for that matter. I sure as hell don't think we need to waste that kind of money on stuff the enemy might take home as a souvenir.

    "Why can't we all just get along?!" I'd rather see research and development dollars spent making war and conflict obsolete.

    At the moment, most of the conflict where it is "the world" vs. the U.S.A., seems to be stemming from ridiculous policies that no one can fully explain. Why do we care about the "spread of communism"? Why do we care about "defending Israel"? There are a lot of humanitarian causes far more dire and we leave those tragedies alone with a clear conscience. Can someone tell me why we spend SO much money and so many human lives on "expanding democracy" and "defending Israel"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by schnikies79 (788746)

      War and conflict will become obsolete when humans become obsolete.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR (28044)

      The answer is simple but unpleasant. You try and stop the biggest threats to you. Iraq wasn't using the money it got from oil to make a better life for it's people. It was using it to get nukes and chemical weapons. Yes they really where before the first war. We found lots of nice and nasty stuff then.
      Oil = money and money = weapons. The big lesson that most of the western world got from WWII was it is better to fight a little war then a big one.
      That is why Nato went into Serbia with the US's help and th

      • While the press shakes a finger at the US the actual governments just shake their head in public and behind closed doors are probably glad that it is happening.
        Yea you will get some venting on Slashdot about how evil the US is but those people are not in political power.

        So as long as we've got US-friendly governments in place, there's no need to worry about popular opinion? Well, I suppose that strategy's never backfired horribly on us before...

    • I'd rather see research and development dollars spent making war and conflict obsolete.

      Seeing an end to war is less likely than seeing an end to sex.

  • Pointless invention. (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamapizza (1312801) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:38PM (#25788229)
    What, nobody uses Google Earth anymore?

  • But... (Score:3)

    by isBandGeek() (1369017) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:41PM (#25788295)
    Does it run Linux?

  • screw warfare - how about BASEBALL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by petes_PoV (912422) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:41PM (#25788297)
    If I was developing a hardened, spherical wireless camera, I'd have many more uses for it than killing people. The entertainment possibilities alone are immense. Hopefully we'll see this deployed on the field of play before the battlefield.

  • one-eyed san francisco artist looking for the tech that will allow her to put a webcam in her eye socket:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/15/2008-11-15_san_francisco_artist_looks_to_replace_lo.html [nydailynews.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by arthurpaliden (939626)
      I have been toying with the idea for a while. Not so much to have it wired into my brain but just connected via "bluetooth" or simillar method to a pocket recorder. Control would be by blinking. This would be the ultimate stealth camera. Battery life would probably suck though.
      • why would you need 360 degree view in your eye socket

        Never heard of 'the inner eye' ??? Fits especially well for an artist.

        CC.

  • Lemme get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday November 17 2008, @12:51PM (#25788463)

    The US government already has flying drones with millimeter radar capable of seeing inside a hardened bunker -- as in, it can see bodies and outlines some several feet through concrete and steel. Why not just use those? If you're close enough to throw a grenade toward the target, they're likely close enough to blow you away too, and if I'm taking a bullet in the butt risk, wouldn't it make sense to throw something that could kill them before they kill me?

    "Holy Allah, they're throwing webcams at us! We must flee!"

    Puh-leze.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oodaloop (1229816)
      Uh, because UAVs are hideously expensive maybe? And because we don't have enough to support every squad in theater simultaneously? This would be much cheaper and easier to deploy than multi-million dollar UAVs that require extensive logistics to maintain.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Chyeld (713439)

          Sounds like someone talking out of their ass to me.

          Tell you what, why don't you start up your own company and start selling these cheap UAV's you can make to the military. Get back to us when you become rich and famous, OK?

          People make RF controlled planes all the time. People don't make UAV drones capable of being flown from the other side of the world for up to 24 hours at a stretch all the time.

          When they can, call me. Better yet, call the Air Force.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by oodaloop (1229816)
          Because our UAVs are FAR more than just a plane with a webcam on it. The one referenced above uses milimeter radar. Does your webcam do that? I'm more familiar with the Predator, and if you could see it in action, your mouth would water. Though it still doesn't do it justice, try this article:

          http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=122

  • Commercial Applications (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Monday November 17 2008, @01:07PM (#25788737)

    I see televised golf tournaments becoming much more interesting.

  • Someone played too much ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ihlosi (895663) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:28PM (#25790129)
    Thief 2 - The Metal Age, I think.
    • I watched a show about these on "future weapons" last year. they have been in production for over 3 years now.

      I think it was even used on CSI:NY within the past few years as well. A tactical assault team tossed one into an apartment prior to entry.

        • *sigh*

          6 digit UID's responding to trolls.... \

          (Sorry - couldn't resist starting one of these threads... )

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.