Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Enemy electronic capacity? Have they paid attention to who they're fighting for the last 8 years? They don't even have regular electricity in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less "enemy electronic capacity."
@TheCrudMan: Actually, the enemy they have been fighting recently usually uses crude electronics such as PCs with Google Earth or Maps to plan and coordinate attacks, as well as cell phones for communication and remote bomb detonation. I imagine they'd want EMP grenades as a surefire way to take out an IED's remote detonation receiver.
@gadam07: actually, they wouldn't. The newest trend is using cellphones to activate a wired trigger. The cellphone is outside of any jamming/attack range, and the wired switch isn't effected by the jamming.
@3.5 B: disk_GitEmSteveDave: An EMP will fry the triggering mechanism, if by no other means than inducing current in the wire.
@TheCrudMan: Assuming they're thrown. I kew a guy that can hit a pie plate with a grenade @ 150 yards with an M203. And military gear is already hardened against EMP, most of it was built to function if it survived a nuclear exchange. It takes a lot more to fry that stuff that regular civilian electronics.
@TheCrudMan: Imagine if you could have some kind of disruption device mounted on a lead vehicle in a convoy, how much that would help. If you could have something that would jam or disrupt cell phone signals, or even diasble electronics as the convoy passes by, they could greatly hamper the IED problem. Sure, other cars that pass by might have their engines shut off, but announcements could be made and people could adapt.
You could also remotely shut down cars approaching or fleeing baracades, diable suicide bombers...
The possibility of groundbased electronic disruption in any form would be an amazing asset.
@closhedbb: Some US vehicles have this system, which is why they now go with the wireless device located outside of the range of the jammer which is connected to a wired switch. No electronics are inside the jammed area.
@junyo: A regular grenade would also probably destroy the IED's trigger mechanism. And the rest of it. I'd be more confident driving past one that was already blown all to shit rather than one that hopefully had enough current induced in its trigger mechanism to maybe disable it.
As someone said, the real problem is that they're made to look like anything but an IED.
I can't think of many situations where an EMP grenade is better than an explosive grenade. Maybe for taking out vehicles to capture live prisoners...
04/24/09
04/24/09
o_O bad news bears
04/24/09
04/24/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
02/12/09
A lot of IEDS are plastered to look like a rock, and a visual receptor detonates when it sees something cross its path.
I am in my intro Bomb/fire investigation right now, and some of the stuff they use is just nasty.
02/12/09
02/12/09
@TheCrudMan: Assuming they're thrown. I kew a guy that can hit a pie plate with a grenade @ 150 yards with an M203. And military gear is already hardened against EMP, most of it was built to function if it survived a nuclear exchange. It takes a lot more to fry that stuff that regular civilian electronics.
02/12/09
You could also remotely shut down cars approaching or fleeing baracades, diable suicide bombers...
The possibility of groundbased electronic disruption in any form would be an amazing asset.
02/12/09
02/12/09
As someone said, the real problem is that they're made to look like anything but an IED.
I can't think of many situations where an EMP grenade is better than an explosive grenade. Maybe for taking out vehicles to capture live prisoners...