Please Lower Your Weapon. You Have 15 Seconds To Comply

[atypical1]

Per Jerome's post, I fixed that for you.

edit:  the linked article makes a good point that the Phalanx CIWS has an effective engagement time of about 1/3 of a second before a missile closes from maximum engagement range to impact.  Hence why it's important that it's completely autonomous and that there aren't any humans in the loop.

Very true. From my limited ship experience, we were not allowed anywhere near them when they were armed.

james

[LENSMAN]

Robots with weapons...not a good idea.

Asimov must be turning over in his grave!  

[jetapumper]

Gah!

Robot Cannon Kills 9, Wounds 14

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html

Now if only I could figure a way to mount it on the front of the connie.....sure take care of the cagers on the cell phone!

[veefer800canuck]

How bout 'David Hasselhoff'

I hear he's big in Japan.  

[Wilbur]

That's true. But you really need that in all equip including ground weapons too. At least I would want it in all ground equip. That would add to what those weapons could do.

james

FBCB2.

[DredheadV2.0]

Very true. From my limited ship experience, we were not allowed anywhere near them when they were armed.

james

A friend of mine once described being very nervous crossing the bridge between San Diego and Coronado island.  He noticed the Phalanx guns on one ship were tracking the cars going over the bridge.  Good thing the fcukers weren't loaded.

[atypical1]

I don't believe that they should have even been armed while docked. That does not sound right to me. When I have deployed with the Navy they normally did not have them armed until we were out of US territory.

james

[DredheadV2.0]

I don't believe that they should have even been armed while docked. That does not sound right to me. When I have deployed with the Navy they normally did not have them armed until we were out of US territory.

james

That's what I thought.  Someone should have gotten in deep shit for that (kinda like flying nuclear-tipped missiles over the continental US)

[Johnny Monsoon]

That's true. But you really need that in all equip including ground weapons too. At least I would want it in all ground equip. That would add to what those weapons could do.

james

Already is on heavy ground equipment.  Cannot equip infantry with this (with any sort of practicality) due to the way that system works.  My job is largely dependent on this concept.  

[atypical1]

Already is on heavy ground equipment.  Cannot equip infantry with this (with any sort of practicality) due to the way that system works.  My job is largely dependent on this concept.  

That is good to hear. We had several casualties due to A10's thinking Amtraks and Bradleys were BMP's.

james

[Johnny Monsoon]

That is good to hear. We had several casualties due to A10's thinking Amtraks and Bradleys were BMP's.

james

That surprises me; A10 drivers are very up close and personal type guys.  It's very unlikely they'd make that sort of mistake.  However, I can see it happening from ATG missile launches or GTG missile launches.  Our weapons systems are very, very sophisticated these days and, more often than not, employ visual tracking for accuracy review/target strike confirmation/analysis.

It's bad business, unfortunately, that we can't put IFF on all our weaponry.  You can't allow that system to be in a unit that's likely to be captured.  The way you keep the IFF current (think Return of the Jedi when the Imperial guys are talking about how the rebel forces are trying to use an old code) prohibits the use of this system deployed to very light assets.  

Now, the good news is that our battlefield awareness is MUCH more advanced than it ever has been.  We have an extremely good picture about what is where, and who is who.  It won't ever be perfect, which sucks, but our friendly-fire occurrence is dramatically reduced.

[jerome_oneil]

That's what I thought.  Someone should have gotten in deep shit for that (kinda like flying nuclear-tipped missiles over the continental US)

Odds are that the gun wasn't loaded.  These kinds of things are really two different systems.  The radar and guidance systems, and the chain gun.   Different teams maintain them separately.

[Wilbur]

That surprises me; A10 drivers are very up close and personal type guys.  It's very unlikely they'd make that sort of mistake.

Marines were fired on by an A10 in March 2003 in Nasiriyah, Iraq. How many were killed or wounded by the incident is not known as the Marines were heavily engaged at the time. It happened again in Afghanistan in 2006 against Canadians, killing 1 and wounding at least 30. This was also an A10.

Up close and personal is a very relative phrase. It's much less close and personal than it was during WWII and plenty of mistakes were made then.

[waz]

The concept of them is great. They just need to be perfect in their execution.

I guess South Africa is regretting that contract with Harley Davidson Weapons Division.

[Johnny Monsoon]

Marines were fired on by an A10 in March 2003 in Nasiriyah, Iraq. How many were killed or wounded by the incident is not known as the Marines were heavily engaged at the time. It happened again in Afghanistan in 2006 against Canadians, killing 1 and wounding at least 30. This was also an A10.

Up close and personal is a very relative phrase. It's much less close and personal than it was during WWII and plenty of mistakes were made then.

The Canadian incident was actually an Apache, and there were two instances of the pilot trying to confirm that he was indeed to fire on those guys.  I had that video at work.

The former is more plausible; if they weren't in larger vehicles, it is very, very hard to tell who is who; or worse, that there are friendly forces on the ground.  Our camouflage is really, really good.  I'll do some research on this incident and see if I can review the video.