It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Phalanx-like system to protect soldiers against mortars

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Pentagon Fast-Tracks Mortar Defense System

Monday, March 28, 2005
FoxNews.com


"The U.S. military is fast-tracking a weapons system to reduce the threat of mortar attacks, one of the leading killers of troops in Iraq. It's called C-RAM, short for counter rocket artillery mortar system."

"C-RAM is like a huge Gatling gun, which utilizes fire-finding radar to track mortar launches."

"House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter is urging Congress to provide $75 million in funding to get C-RAM to the front lines."

"C-RAM may borrow some of the same technology from the Navy's Phalanx close-in-weapons system, which defends ships from missile attacks. Phalanx is a fast-reaction, rapid-fire 20-millimeter gun system designed to engage anti-ship cruise missiles and fixed-wing aircraft at short range."

"C-RAM will shoot spent uranium shells very quickly and will be able to take a mortar — a fairly slow-moving projectile — out of the air, Hunter said."

"But unlike at sea, Halley said, collateral damage on land could be a factor, particularly when the C-RAM is transferred to an urban setting."

"In an urban area, if you are able to knock these mortars out and have them explode up in the air, then the debris and the shrapnel from some of those rounds are going to fall, and of course it is going to cause possibly some civilian casualties," Halley said."

"Hunter said that’s a risk worth taking, and that tests show that C-RAM has a 60 to 70 percent shoot-down capability."

"FOX News has learned that the military is expected to sign with a defense contractor by the summer to start manufacturing a line of C-RAM. Prototypes are already en route to Iraq."

"The Army is fast-tracking a lot of technology to send it into Iraq because we are suffering casualties there," Halley said. "Normally, these things would be tested for one, two, three or four years before they were put into the field. So, we are going to be putting many of these new systems into the field in Iraq without complete testing, and some of them are going to work and some of them are probably not going to work very well, but I think it is worth our trouble … any American life saved is worth the effort."



Of course this could possibly get up to 80% - 90% hit rate.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I love hearing stuff like this...

Civilian casualties are expected...

Uses depleted uranium...

Any American lives saved are worth the effort.

Well of course they are, because Americans are 'God's Chosen People' right? We're better than the rest of the world, and we can do whatever we want!




The level of hubris is staggering. It's..simply astronomical.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
What they are complaining because o few civilians might get hit with small pieces of shrapnel form exploding mortals?

Well its worth the risk if saves U.S. soldiers. I'm not trying to sound rude but this is a war things happen people get hurt. They should star producing this ASAP and sending it out to our forces overseas.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What they are complaining because o few civilians might get hit with small pieces of shrapnel form exploding mortals?

Well its worth the risk if saves U.S. soldiers. I'm not trying to sound rude but this is a war things happen people get hurt. They should star producing this ASAP and sending it out to our forces overseas.


Your not going to gain the trust of civilians with thoughts like that. If every one out in iraq thinks like that then they are never going to gain the trust of civilians, thus making everyones job much easier.
Servicemen know that mortality is a possibilty when they joined up, civilians don't sign up for a war.
Before anyone argues that the the soldiers don't want to fight this war, shouldn't have joined the forces, get over it and obey orders even if you don't agree with them.

Ours not to reason why Ours but to do and die.
Alfred Lord Tennyson


[edit on 30/3/05 by Ruled By Secrecy]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I love hearing stuff like this...

Civilian casualties are expected...

Uses depleted uranium...

Any American lives saved are worth the effort.

Well of course they are, because Americans are 'God's Chosen People' right? We're better than the rest of the world, and we can do whatever we want!




The level of hubris is staggering. It's..simply astronomical.



Pay attention to the article:

""In an urban area, if you are able to knock these mortars out and have them explode up in the air, then the debris and the shrapnel from some of those rounds are going to fall, and of course it is going to cause possibly some civilian casualties," Halley said."

He mentions "falling debris", hows that the US's fault? They cant shoot stuff down because it may fall on people? Man you take bleeding heart liberalism to a new level...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
That's so funny that you would deign to call ME a bleeding heart liberal...

SO funny.

I'm about as non-partisan as they come.


And how about not using DU? How's that for starters?

Does it make me a bleeding heart liberal because I'm opposed to causing birth defects?

Does it make me a bleeding heart liberal for thinking there might be better ways of mitigating the damage from mortar fire than filling the sky with radioactive material?

hmmmm...

Does it make me a bleeding heart liberal for thinking farther than five minutes ahead? When that debris falls on people, and the resistance parades more bodies through the streets, do you think THAT'S going to reduce the number of incoming mortar shells?

Winning hearts and minds remember? But of course that was a lie. We're there to kill people and push through corporate contracts.

I think you need to rethink your definitions, and stop labeling people.

Come near me with one of those little pricing guns in real life and see what happens.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
My point is, if we need to start worrying about innactive bits and pieces falling out of the sky in WAR zones during COMBAT I think we have gone to far.

Why complain about the effects of soldiers attempting to deffend themselves, why not make a post about the people who fired the mortar in the first place? After all, there wouldnt be any need to shoot it down if it was never fired in a zone with civilians.

Also: Mortars arent exactly "percision" weapons, im sure the populace is safer from falling debris than it is from active mortars falling from the sky.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
if you are complainin about civilians being endanger, then i suggest you tell the insurgents to stop mortaring and instead use IEDs only (that is a more civilized way to fight a war lol).



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Civilian casualties are expected...Uses depleted uranium...Any American lives saved are worth the effort.Well of course they are, because Americans are 'God's Chosen People' right?

Uhmm, the primary goal of the US military is to kill enemy soldiers and reduce the number of US soldier casualties. Yes, its certainly worth it, who gives a damn if a mortar is shot down and explods over a civilian town? If they don't want to get killed by enemy mortars then they should join the fight against the enemy. If they don't consider the terrorists and insurgents attacking US soldiers to be their enemy, then why the hell should the US military let its people be killed to protect them? Blame the people firing the mortars, not the people trying to protect themselves.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Uhmm, the primary goal of the US military is to kill enemy soldiers and reduce the number of US soldier casualties.


No. The primary goal of both sides in any war is to win. Simple. However that is accomplished, whether by treaty, or subterfuge, or valor, or technology, the goal is to win. To kill is a byproduct of combat, not a goal.



Yes, its certainly worth it, who gives a damn if a mortar is shot down and explods over a civilian town?


Your posts are making less and less sense lately, why is that? Who gives a damn? The civilians I imagine.




If they don't want to get killed by enemy mortars then they should join the fight against the enemy.


If they don't want to get killed they should become soldiers?
That's the worst advice ever. If they want to survive, they should leave the country and go somewhere the US and the Resistance isn't fighting. If they can't stand to leave their country they should reinforce their roof or construct a crude bomb shelter.



If they don't consider the terrorists and insurgents attacking US soldiers to be their enemy, then why the hell should the US military let its people be killed to protect them?


They consider them, for the most part, a resistance movement with the stated goal of driving foreign invaders out of the country. The US military shouldn't be there in the first place, but since they're there, they should do everything in their power to prevent more people from rising up against them, and that means reducing civilian casualties. The US military lets its soldiers die by putting them in harms way. There's an easy way to remove them from harms way. It's called removing them from the country.


Let Iraqi people deal with Iraqi problems, and we won't need to have this conversation.

If China invaded America to 'save us from the evil tyrant' I wouldn't welcome them. They're just another tyrant wearing different clothing.



Blame the people firing the mortars, not the people trying to protect themselves.


Of course the people firing the mortars are to blame for the shell being in the sky, directly, but you have to ask why the people firing the mortars are doing so in the first place. They're doing it to save their country from what they perceive as unchecked agression.

And incidentally, the soldiers could 'protect themselves' by simply nuking the whole area, but they don't. Why? Because it's counterproductive to the stated goal of the invasion, and this swarm of DU to counteract mortar attacks is no different. It does more harm than good.

We could have simply razed every city to the ground instead of just a few, but we 'restrained' ourselves because the intent was not to level the country, but put a puppet government in place and restore the country to order. How can that be accomplished if the entire country hates us for causing birth defects and destroying homes and leaving radioactive debris everywhere?

[edit on 30-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Listen the debris might cause some civilian casualties, and its expected its a war. The insurgents are probably going to kill hundreds of times more civilians with car bombs than these fragments will. But somehow no one considers it bad that insurgents target civilians with car bombs. They say of the insurgents are only doing it to win and liberate and all this BS. But if the U.S. dares to produce something that might save the lives of its troops and make the zone safer for everyone, it not acceptable because it is made by the U.S.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
"but you have to ask why the people firing the mortars are doing so in the first place"

doesnt matter, in war its about winning and taking minimal causalties, they arent there to protect anyone except themselves.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Listen the debris might cause some civilian casualties, and its expected its a war.


Expected yes, encouraged, no. If you and your ilk keep encouraging it, the Iraqis might start hating US citizens instead of just our government. I mean, the Iraqis might get the impression you don't give a damn about them. I wonder why they would get that impression?



The insurgents are probably going to kill hundreds of times more civilians with car bombs than these fragments will.


Probably, yes. That doesn't change our objective in the least. We can't control the resistance, we can only mitigate our own mistakes.



But somehow no one considers it bad that insurgents target civilians with car bombs.


That's absolute crap. Nobody on this board thinks it's a good thing that the resistance is killing civilians, and nobody has claimed it was good. Prove what you're saying, show me a post where I or somebody else said it wasn't bad. Besides, they don't target civilians, like usual, the civilians were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They target our troops, sympathizers, and anybody who advances our agenda. We'd be doing the exact same thing in their shoes.



They say of the insurgents are only doing it to win and liberate and all this BS.


They are only doing it to win and liberate their country. What do you think they're doing it for? You think they're doing it because it's an excuse to twirl their mustaches and cackle menacingly? Seriously, what is your perception of their motive?



But if the U.S. dares to produce something that might save the lives of its troops and make the zone safer for everyone, it not acceptable because it is made by the U.S.


The manufacturer of the device is not at issue. I don't care if it's made in Finland, or France, or freakin' Tunisia! The fact that it uses depleted uranium is the sticking point! Pay attention!

namehere
That's not true at all. The war was started under the pretext of protecting the Iraqi people, remember? REMEMBER? That pretext was abanoned about five minutes into the war, and now it's just about our troops trying to stay alive. That's the folly of this war.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Expected yes, encouraged, no. If you and your ilk keep encouraging it, the Iraqis might start hating US citizens instead of just our government. I mean, the Iraqis might get the impression you don't give a damn about them. I wonder why they would get that impression?


Who is encouraging it? If you have a better and safer system for shooting down mortars I’m all ears. But letting U.S. troops die while the technology exist to save them is not acceptable. The U.S. troops have done more for the Iraqi people than all of these insurgents will ever do.


Probably, yes. That doesn't change our objective in the least. We can't control the resistance, we can only mitigate our own mistakes.


Isn’t part of ten objective to protect our troops and install an new Iraqi government? I think stopping the mortar will help us control the insurgents therefore accomplish the objectives as fast as possible .


Besides, they don't target civilians, like usual, the civilians were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They target our troops, sympathizers, and anybody who advances our agenda. We'd be doing the exact same thing in their shoes.


What OMFG am I hearing this correct? Civilians were at the wrong place at the wrong time? Well maybe I’m stupid but if you blow a car bomb in the middle of a market, do you somehow expect the Iraqi people b magically unharmed and the bomb to only cause damage to our troops?
Also you speak as if our “agenda” is worse than the agenda of the Insurgents. Installing a new and freely elected democratic nation with better living conditions for its people is a far better “agenda” than bowing up random people and taking civilians captive and beheading them. I don't want to blow myself up for some religious belief like killing the “Infidels” so no I wouldn't do the same thing as the insurgents.


They are only doing it to win and liberate their country. What do you think they're doing it for? You think they're doing it because it's an excuse to twirl their mustaches and cackle menacingly? Seriously, what is your perception of their motive?


Their country? Since when do people form Iran, Syria, Palestine and Saudi Arabia call Iraq their country? Liberate? again I cannot believe I am hearing this, the majority of Iraq want to move forward and be a civilized country again, what is there to liberate if every one is prospering and enjoying all the freedoms we enjoy? And If you read my above text you will know why they are doing it.


The manufacturer of the device is not at issue. I don't care if it's made in Finland, or France, or freakin' Tunisia! The fact that it uses depleted uranium is the sticking point! Pay attention!


I'm sure there is a reason why they are using depleted uranium rounds, It harder to manufacture DU rounds than conventional rounds so I don't think the Pentagon in doing it for no reason.


That's not true at all. The war was started under the pretext of protecting the Iraqi people, remember? REMEMBER? That pretext was abanoned about five minutes into the war, and now it's just about our troops trying to stay alive. That's the folly of this war.


So what are we doing now, do you not think were not protecting the Iraqi people? If they U.S. wasn't there to protects the Iraqi people thee Insures who start behead and killing everyone who doesn't want their dictatorship ways and Iraq would be the same again with no law and order an on freedoms for it people.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
If, and it's a big if, the mortars can be shot down with 80-90% accuracy, then think of the results.

As someone that is in Iraq right now said, the main problem with mortars isn't getting hit. It's that you have to move to protected locations on the base and sit there until the all-clear is given. It disrupts the operations of the base.

Now, let's say that now, they don't have to go on lockdown every time a mortar is incoming. That means the mortars are now ineffective. We already know that the insurgents set up, launch a few mortars, and then run before retaliation can take palce. But if we can cut down on the time it takes to shoot back, they'll stop firing mortars in the first place. Which means after the first few uses of the defense, there won't be any mortars to create clouds of deadly debris.

Possibly, anyway.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


Well of course they are, because Americans are 'God's Chosen People' right? We're better than the rest of the world, and we can do whatever we want!




You call yourself a "non-partisan"?

Your not fooling anyone here. Any technology that brings an American soldier home safe to his family and friends is a good thing.

If residents in a Iraqi neighborhood don't want shrapnel raining down on them, they should'nt let terrorist mortar crews set up on their street in the 1st place!!

Maximu§




[edit on 113131p://333 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
westpoint
I suggest they use tungsten carbide instead of DU. Listen up LA Maximus, this lecture is for you too. The DU issue IS about the safety of our soldiers, not just the enemy. I suggest you do the responsible thing and look into the controversy surrounding DU before you make such pronouncements.

Both children below were born to soldiers who served in Iraq. Their exposure was uncontrolled, but probably a great deal less than the dose received by those on the receiving end of the shells.





www.notinourname.net...

www.tetrahedron.org...

www.mindfully.org...

southmovement.alphalink.com.au...

www.uwec.edu...

This is NUCLEAR WASTE, the US Government needed to get rid of. So what do they do? Instead of disposing of it responsibly they chose to fashion the stuff into radioactive, armor penetrating bullets. Now a good portion of Iraq, not to mention Kosovo, is tainted with the stuff. The birth defects we're seeing are..too horribile to describe. Many of the afflicted are American servicemen, but the majority are the children of the people we're supposed to be liberating. They're born without eyes, with giant tumors, holes in their spinal cord leading out onto the surface of their back, skin like rubber with deep wounds, no arms, other assorted limb deformities, and other gross abnormalities that almost always lead to a painful death.

This is your humanity? This is your mercy?

[edit on 31-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
You might want to go back to your dictionary and look up the word:

"Depleted"....that means its all gone!! No Uranium is left in those shells!!

Those defects coulda been caused by dozens of other illneses.

Maximu§



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Who gives a damn? The civilians I imagine.

What does their opinion on the situation matter? Who gives a damn amoung those who have to make the decision?



If they don't want to get killed they should become soldiers?

If they don't want to die from insurgent mortars being shot down then they should do something about the insurgency, rather than sit there and do nothing.




they should do everything in their power to prevent more people from rising up against them, and that means reducing civilian casualties.

Certainly not at the cost of loosing more troops.



It's called removing them from the country.

Since that isn't an option, then this system is well worth the cost of civilian casualties.





They're doing it to save their country from what they perceive as unchecked agression.

And the US is protecting its soldiers from unchecked agression.


and this swarm of DU to counteract mortar attacks is no different. It does more harm than good.

If du kills anyone it'll be long after the soldiers have left and isn't going to contribute to the insurgency.


How can that be accomplished if the entire country hates us for causing birth defects and destroying homes and leaving radioactive debris everywhere?

There are allways going to be civilian casualties in anywar. Fire bombing dresden didn't make the german people reject their new puppet government, and nuking two entire cities in japan didn't incite a resistance there either. The insurgency is killing more iraqis now than are dying as civilian casualites, and this device will probably not significantly change that. If there is anyone that they are going to resent, its the insurgents.

The war itself was two years ago, thats when the most civilians died from US attacks. So in that time, the families have started to replace their lost kids. In a year or so, when their two year olds are killed in an insurgent attack, they aren't going to say 'death to america' they're going to support the people fighting the insurgents, and they're certainly not going to revolt in any significant way because the US is shooting down enemy mortars over their heads.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Besides, they don't target civilians

When you attack a church or a pilgimage procession, you are targeting civilians.

They target our troops, sympathizers, and anybody who advances our agenda

IE civilians.

What do you think they're doing it for

To install themselves as the ones running the country. They are certainly not fighting for liberty. They're trying to incite sectarian civil war. If they were freedom fighters then they'd be attacking the occupiers, not the civilians.

The fact that it uses depleted uranium is the sticking point!

DU is dangerous in so far as its a heavy metal. If you inhale a certain amount of it, you die from radiation poisoning. Its not at all clear that it causes radiation poisoning and such. These DU 'bullets' aren't going to pose enough of a hazzard from inhalation. They'll be dispersed by the explosion and wind and not be in a dangerous concentration. THe people who get sick from DU are people who have to do things like crawl into shelled tanks shortly after they've been destroyed.

The war was started under the pretext of protecting the Iraqi people, remember

Ensuring that a democratic government comes into existence is what will protect the people, not allowing these thugs and criminals to seize control.


esoterica
the main problem with mortars isn't getting hit. It's that you have to move to protected locations

Interesting point, this might mean that the troops can move about more freely in the country, and that things like supply convoys and aid worker stations can be better protected, more effective, and more numerous. It also means that the troops might not be in a 'seige' mentality and be better able to interact with the public.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join