These devices, like any other weapon, require a certain response. But again, you can't let the response sacrifice other areas of concern and tactical requirements.  Get too buttoned up, and you won't see the next threat, which will no doubt be even deadlier.
In the end, catching and killing those who employ these weapons is what will make our men safe, NOT a gadget or a thicker piece of steel.

Those EFPs sound horrendous. Found this link:

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm

Quoted: So how do you KNOW that it costs five times what it should? Personally, I think I should be able to buy a Ferrarri for $10k. It doesn't work out that way. Consider the fact that the guys "who've lived their whole life under flourescent lights" need to do that in order to build such equipment. I have 22 years of education (over a decade in university) and STILL have to go to classes to keep current. The people who designed the CROWS are indeed the experts. I hate to break it to ya, but every modern weapon system we have was dreamed up by nerds.

The fact that it's dreamed up by nerds is the problem.   I've watched feature after feature added to simple, already proven weapon system prototypes, by male engineers who are getting their ideas from video game combat, and female engineers who are just thinking about getting to daycare before 5pm,  till a system that should take a few hours to train on winds up being a 250 page book, and a 2 week long class, with end users walking out still making basic mistakes due to the systems overbearing complexity.

End shooters have to be more involved, and not just agree to what engineers tell them is good.

Quoted: End shooters have to be more involved, and not just agree to what engineers tell them is good.

You wouldnt believe the red-tape involved in that.  Usually, the most junior person that sees a product in development is an (O3) Captain or SFC (in my experience).  At least the SFCs are usually not afraid to say when something sucks ass. Usually.

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: End shooters have to be more involved, and not just agree to what engineers tell them is good. You wouldnt believe the red-tape involved in that.  Usually, the most junior person that sees a product in development is an (O3) Captain or SFC (in my experience).  At least the SFCs are usually not afraid to say when something sucks ass. Usually. Kharn

I've worked with individuals as low as Lance Corporals, sitting with them for hours while they evaluate and give their opinions.   They generally are more open when their superiors aren't around.

At least in the USMC.   In the Army, I agree I've never seen anyone less than a Captain.

Didn't the German Marder have a remote controled MG turret in the 70's? Surely the USA had one before now.

The original M1 Abrams had a remote control for the commander's .50 (but not as full featured as the CROWS or RWS, just basically slew the gun around and fire, no 20x zoom, NV/IR, ballistic compensation, etc).  It was removed in either the M1A1 (or M1A2?) upgrade, because the Army felt the commander was better served by the new control module that allowed him to take control of the turrent (including elevate and fire the main gun) from his station. That module was so large the .50's fire controls had to be removed to make room.

Kharn

Quoted: I'll be impressed when they can port video feed from it and control over the internet so we can all pay to hunt Hadji's like they do with deer in Texas and Kentucky!

Let's see .... pissed off 17 year old metal head wired up on Jolt cola listening to Nine Inch Nail with this system vs. mr roper down the street a couple thousand miles away.

Quoted: The fact that it's dreamed up by nerds is the problem.   I've watched feature after feature added to simple, already proven weapon system prototypes, by male engineers who are getting their ideas from video game combat, and female engineers who are just thinking about getting to daycare before 5pm,  till a system that should take a few hours to train on winds up being a 250 page book, and a 2 week long class, with end users walking out still making basic mistakes due to the systems overbearing complexity.

Ed: I don't know what kind of systems you've been involved with, but in the Big Electronics Business it is exactly the opposite situation.

Even with a 100 page spec. the acquiring activity only has the roughest idea of what it functionally wants. Because the resulting specification compliant system is a mere shell of what it needs to be there is a ton of "we should do this" and "wouldn't it be cool if" proposed by your male engineer prototype as described above. But very little of it ever makes it in.

Why doesn't it make it in? Because it means the original specification is wrong, which embarrasses the goverment program office and requirements guys. Because it means that the job, which was underbid to start with, now is going to go even further over budget and schedule than it already is, which is an even more deadly form of embarrassment for both government and contractor program management. In fact it can get the job cancelled. So we wind up delivering 100% specification compliant systems that only do half the job.

The sad thing is that this is acceptable to everyone except the grunts at both ends: the grunt engineer and the grunt user. It is acceptable because this is how you play the game. The federal budget is approved. We execute what we can for that year (or years). Too often what needs to get executed is too much to bite off for that much money, but if the services don't sell Congress the entire thing up front you don't get any money at all. Then when we fail, we do it all over again to get it right in the next budget cycle.  If we demand that it be done right in the current budget cycle there is no money, the program gets cancelled (which means at best it will have to start all over again, probably with another contractor because "the first one screwed up") and the user gets nothing. And when I say "we" I mean BOTH government and industry.

It's a screwed up way to develop stuff because in the Big Systems world it is NOT a free market economy. You can't afford to go through a multi-million dollar development on speculation when you are only going to sell 10,000 of something. And from the service perspective they have to get Congress pregnant with each project and they have so many projects, so inevitably some of them are going to be underfunded in the first go around.

What amazes me is how people allow themselves to be talked into playing these crazy games. But that's why government (and the military) are full of politicians. But that's no surprise. After all, I'm an engineer, the exact opposite of a politician

aa

Quoted: Quoted: I'll be impressed when they can port video feed from it and control over the internet so we can all pay to hunt Hadji's like they do with deer in Texas and Kentucky! Let's see .... pissed off 17 year old metal head wired up on Jolt cola listening to Nine Inch Nail with this system vs. mr roper down the street a couple thousand miles away.

LOL, what would you say if I told you this was exactly the type of guy that was a vehicle commander for a Stryker in Mosul?

only he's a pissed-off 19 year-old metal head wired up on Red Bull listening to System of a Down

Quoted: Quoted: The fact that it's dreamed up by nerds is the problem.   I've watched feature after feature added to simple, already proven weapon system prototypes, by male engineers who are getting their ideas from video game combat, and female engineers who are just thinking about getting to daycare before 5pm,  till a system that should take a few hours to train on winds up being a 250 page book, and a 2 week long class, with end users walking out still making basic mistakes due to the systems overbearing complexity. Ed: I don't know what kind of systems you've been involved with, but in the Big Electronics Business it is exactly the opposite situation. Even with a 100 page spec. the acquiring activity only has the roughest idea of what it functionally wants. Because the resulting specification compliant system is a mere shell of what it needs to be there is a ton of "we should do this" and "wouldn't it be cool if" proposed by your male engineer prototype as described above. But very little of it ever makes it in. Why doesn't it make it in? Because it means the original specification is wrong, which embarrasses the goverment program office and requirements guys. Because it means that the job, which was underbid to start with, now is going to go even further over budget and schedule than it already is, which is an even more deadly form of embarrassment for both government and contractor program management. In fact it can get the job cancelled. So we wind up delivering 100% specification compliant systems that only do half the job. The sad thing is that this is acceptable to everyone except the grunts at both ends: the grunt engineer and the grunt user. It is acceptable because this is how you play the game. The federal budget is approved. We execute what we can for that year (or years). Too often what needs to get executed is too much to bite off for that much money, but if the services don't sell Congress the entire thing up front you don't get any money at all. Then when we fail, we do it all over again to get it right in the next budget cycle.  If we demand that it be done right in the current budget cycle there is no money, the program gets cancelled (which means at best it will have to start all over again, probably with another contractor because "the first one screwed up") and the user gets nothing. And when I say "we" I mean BOTH government and industry. It's a screwed up way to develop stuff because in the Big Systems world it is NOT a free market economy. You can't afford to go through a multi-million dollar development on speculation when you are only going to sell 10,000 of something. And from the service perspective they have to get Congress pregnant with each project and they have so many projects, so inevitably some of them are going to be underfunded in the first go around. What amazes me is how people allow themselves to be talked into playing these crazy games. But that's why government (and the military) are full of politicians. But that's no surprise. After all, I'm an engineer, the exact opposite of a politician aa

The problem arises because you have people spending money that isn't theirs (it's ours) and have small incentive to be frugal with it, so they toss all the red tape in the middle about 3 bidders and whatnot.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll be impressed when they can port video feed from it and control over the internet so we can all pay to hunt Hadji's like they do with deer in Texas and Kentucky! Let's see .... pissed off 17 year old metal head wired up on Jolt cola listening to Nine Inch Nail with this system vs. mr roper down the street a couple thousand miles away. LOL, what would you say if I told you this was exactly the type of guy that was a vehicle commander for a Stryker in Mosul? only he's a pissed-off 19 year-old metal head wired up on Red Bull listening to System of a Down

I was talking to some Marines yesterday that had figured out how to rig up their MP3 players into their vehicle intercom systems because they were bored during training missions. We told'em to have fun, but try not to jump the vehicle, we dont have the budget to buy new axles.

Kharn