Anti-projectile net could protect soldiers

We've seen a wide array of devices that tip off the good guys to approaching enemies, hunt down IEDs, and send back live video of opposing camps, but a new patent application lays out plans to construct a specialized net that could actually detonate incoming grenades or rockets before they strike their intended target(s). More specifically, the app calls for a "protection system featuring a flexible packaged net" that could be attached to a military vehicle, which could then be deployed if onboard sensors pick up "incoming threats" such as an RPG. Another perk would be the relatively low cost of manufacturing and the ease of moving from one tank to another, but as these things always go, there's no telling when (or if) we'll see this technology in action.

[Via NewScientist]

[FrankTheCrank @ Sep 24th 2007 1:09PM]

Our troops are going to need it because we're going to be Iraq for a LONG TIME.

This is the only way to protect our currency on the world market. If all oil producing countries go Euro, the Dollar will be phucked.

Terrorism, Islam....it's all a smoke screen.

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 24th 2007 1:21PM]

I'm not sure I understand your point, but the US dollar is already phucked as you put it with the millions per day that's being spent, so you'd better hope the war doesn't continue much longer.

screw americans in need, single mothers, homeless, health care,.. $400,000 missiles are where tax payers want their money spent!

ya, I'm sorry I don't even know what my point is at this point... it's a cool device.

[jroc @ Sep 24th 2007 6:16PM]

Frank is right and the war will continue if we don't vote Ron Paul. Every other candidate is on the same f**king team cald tge cfr.

[Wwhat @ Sep 24th 2007 10:45PM]

Those 400K missiles are bought in the good ol US of A and not in mexico or china, so that money just rotates within the US economy, what's lost is to some chemicals and electronics, and I think they actually rely largely on non-chinese parts for the electronics too.
So there is a loss to import from some chemicals but not even near the $400K asked for the rockets, nope, most of that money that's spent on ordinance lands in companies like those owned by cheney and bush's family..

Also all those calculations of how much the occupation/destabilization takes don't subtract the money the army would require when the soldiers were at home I bet, they get payed then too you know, and I don't think they subtract the normal running cost that would be spent anyway from the expense the iraq occupation/destabilization creates when they throw around figures. (I might be wrong though)

Not that it's not stupid and messy and pointless and creating more issues than solving them of course.

[Dheeraj @ Sep 24th 2007 1:09PM]

SHIELDS UP!

[Eric @ Sep 24th 2007 1:20PM]

Is that a spear being thrown?

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 24th 2007 1:23PM]

nerf projectile actually. I think this is thinkgeeks defense against the usb controlled missile launcher.

[Ransom @ Sep 24th 2007 1:32PM]

it looks more like a screwdriver, going backwards

[Akiosarin @ Sep 24th 2007 7:35PM]

yeah, the angry mechanics want there hammocks back.....
I see this being turned into a movie...

[mark @ Sep 24th 2007 1:26PM]

step 1 - throw a big stone at the truck and set off the net

step 2 - launch grenade


idiots.

[kevin @ Sep 24th 2007 1:32PM]

one could always just launch 2 grenades at an interval. the first one which may get blocked, but the second would probably make it through.

[Eric @ Sep 24th 2007 1:34PM]

I doubt they're planning this as a one shot deal.

And a stick would never set it off. It needs something traveling at a high velocity.

[Paris @ Sep 24th 2007 1:44PM]

"And a stick would never set it off. It needs something travelling at a high velocity".

Blank missiles would do the job really good.

[Stan Winstone @ Sep 24th 2007 1:35PM]

Wonderful- more dumb crap to throw into the national debt. When will we get leaders more intent on giving folks less reasons to launch missiles at us rather than technocrap to try and shoot missiles down?

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 24th 2007 1:59PM]

you win the best comment of the month award.

unfortunately some men dressed all tidy and in black will come knockign on your door to deliver the award.

[Will @ Sep 24th 2007 1:39PM]

They already tested something like this. It shot out ball-bearings in a circle at a moderate velocity to activate the explosive in RPG's and to injure nearby enemies. It wasn't a one shot deal, either, it could reload a few times before being depleted and useless.

[a different Will @ Sep 24th 2007 9:36PM]

Yeah, the Israelis have already deployed a similar system, which the US is already purchasing en masse. It uses radar-guided and -timed shotgun blast to neutralize incoming projectiles. It works very well, and has been proven in combat situations.
Another + is that bulky and impractical "Cage Armor" can be omitted from vehicles. This is also big, because Cage armor:
- Can't be on the vehicle while the vehicle is being transported.
- Requires (on a HMMWV) ~50 man-hours of complicated welding to mount, more on an M1A1 (the US' main battle tank).
- Hurts visibility and mobility (Armored HMMWVS are pathetically under-engined as is, let alone if you add another ton of metal cage [outboard of the two axles, no less]).
- Does not contribute to the US' "Hearts and Minds" strategy.
So these 'active defense' measures are really a godsend.

[ryantrevisol @ Sep 24th 2007 1:44PM]

So the RPG explodes 3 feet away from the truck instead of IN it. That helps a LOT.

[hp540 @ Sep 24th 2007 1:49PM]

actually, that would help a lot

[Ron Smith @ Sep 24th 2007 1:53PM]

I am assuming that was sarcasm, however exploding three feet further does help, as it significantly reduces the force felt from the explosion. Shrapnel would still be a problem, but again the deceleration and also still having a complete covering in a vehicle is much better than the alternative.

[ryantrevisol @ Sep 24th 2007 2:36PM]

Congrats on spotting the sarcasm. Obviously it would like to slow down/detonate the projectile further away than depicted in the picture. If it's a net as shown, however, it wouldn't be very effective in blocking shrapnel, and it exploding further away would mean a broader coverage of shrapnel on the occupants of the vehicle.

What I would love to see is a fine spider-silk type web that shoots out, envelops the projectile, and reduces it to a smoldering goo sac.

[Paul @ Sep 24th 2007 4:51PM]

the thing is the RPG's are made to pierce armor, the shrapnel is not.

2 senarios here:
RPG hits vehicle, penetrates vehicle, explodes in vehicle causing the inside of the Humvee to turn into a slaughterhouse of hamburger as the shrapnel bounces around inside the vehicle.

RPG hits net and is detonated before it hits armor, shrapnel his armor, Maybe some shrapnel makes it through the armor but for the most part it is contained outside, people inside are probably a little deaf, but otherwise alright.

I for one would welcome option #2.

That said I dont see how this stops them from shooting a second time...

[B @ Sep 24th 2007 5:01PM]

Do me a favor, set off a firecracker 3 feet away from your fist, then set one off inside your fist. Feel the difference.

[JC @ Sep 24th 2007 2:03PM]

Ah, let them have it, I say. This will be much better for the masses because we'll get funny YouTube videos of Marines with nothing better to do using it on each other.

[Dave @ Sep 24th 2007 2:08PM]

I have an idea for protecting soldiers: get them out of Iraq. It's a much simpler plan, less prone to failure, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

[wetworker @ Sep 24th 2007 3:31PM]

couldn’t you just shoot a decoy to activate this device then shoot the real rocket after the mesh has deployed, I’m sure the freedom fighter of that county will work in pairs of two to bypass this joke, this is one of reason the U.S will loose, well they already lost ,unless you completely willing to kill thousands more innocent people you’ve already lost, shit the Vietcong had only a gun, knapsack and they still manage to kick the U.S ass. Technology can’t win wars.

[robert.j.lamb @ Sep 24th 2007 3:37PM]

It'll never be used. I worked extensively on Active Protection Systems (APS) for the Marine Corps, looking at boxes that fired everything from nets, to grenades, to rockets to knock out incoming RPGs. No soldier in the world wants a computer automatically firing when most RPGs miss the vehicles anyway, and those that do hit are often duds.

Basically the protection system would potentially be much more deadly to dismounted soldiers nearby than any random RPG fired by an insurgent poking around a corner.

[Ron Smith @ Sep 24th 2007 2:01PM]

why not add a safing system, and simply turn it off when they are dismounted? Vehicles are much less vulnerable with dismounted soldiers, so it really wouldn't be needed, but when going from A to B is when such a system would really be needed.

[Matthew Hilario @ Sep 24th 2007 4:28PM]

what is this? spiderman inspired?

[Matthew Hilario @ Sep 24th 2007 4:29PM]

what is this? spiderman inspired?

[twoboxen @ Sep 24th 2007 4:48PM]

Does this system also fire a trident back at the attacker ala gladiator style?

[Ivan Ruiz @ Sep 24th 2007 5:15PM]

We should use this state side for door dings...LOL

[Mike @ Sep 24th 2007 5:24PM]

Similar to Reactive Armor.

[robert.j.lamb @ Sep 24th 2007 6:00PM]

Ron -

Excellent point, but when going from A to B and you have no dismounts, you also have no threat from RPGs. In fact, the RPG threat is largely non-existant to the vehicles that would look to use this system (Light Armor Vehicles) due to their shoddy construction and the poor employment by the enemy. Additionally, even when traveling with no dismounts, you still aren't buttoned up and have guys hanging out of hatches mounting .50 cals and providing visual security, so there is still a danger of intercepting projectiles near the vehicle, or even the danger from the backblast itself.

When you have dismounts in Military Operations on Urban Terrain (MOUT) situations, most systems have a 'kill button' or even a way to set sectors where the system is only looking at the front 180 and your dismounts stay to the rear. But in MOUT, the enemy attacks from all directions. The enemy will just wait for you to drive by and then shoot from behind (but likely miss).

All the surveys we conducted with Marines, and my informal discussions with buddies who are deployed responded with two points: 1. RPGs aren't a significant threat, 2. the money is better spent on anti-IED technology

[watchingandlistening @ Sep 24th 2007 9:39PM]

Mr. Lamb,

It would be good if you stopped talking about your work in an open environment. Interested people are watching this.

[Magallanes @ Sep 24th 2007 6:02PM]

Spiderhumbee 3 soon in cinema.

[michael @ Sep 24th 2007 6:19PM]

RPGs are anti tank weapons. They have evolved from the german panzerfaust of world war 2. And to the person who claims that three foot wouldnt make a diffrence I disagree. An rpg is innifective against armour at three foot. The way an rpg works is by using a shaped charge to concentrate the explosives and send a jet of mlten metal into the inside of the tank to detonate the unused shells inside the tank. High explosives are largely ineffective against tanks, that is why tanks fire at other tanks with kinetic rounds.

[jamesFF @ Sep 24th 2007 7:22PM]

Would this device protect the helicopters form being shot down?
If so it would pay itself with it's first use.

[Wwhat @ Sep 24th 2007 10:52PM]

You know if you looked at pictures from iraq you might have noticed that the british armoured vehicles for instance suddenly have a 'fence' attached to them a few inch from their surface, what do you think that is for?
And about the hitting it twice, those RPG's need some reloading time and you need to carry heavy grenades and once you fired one you better get the hell out of there and not stand fishing heavy ammo out of your backpack and take your time reloading, while you are nervous as hell, so I don't think the concept of hitting it twice is so critical in practice.

[xc7x @ Sep 25th 2007 3:39AM]

The newscientist link dead for me.