Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Libyan Rebels Weaponize Power Wheels Toys

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the play-time-is-over dept.

The Military 310

Danny Rathjens pointed out a story about the DIY weapons created by Libyan rebels. One of the more interesting is a machine gun drone created from a Power Wheels-style ATV. Rebels outfit the toys with a small cannon and attach controls via long wire. A solider can hide while he uses a small television and simple controls to move the vehicle and fire the gun. A similar system is also outfitted to a toy truck with a machine gun on top.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

pikers (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451282)

Lock Tony Stark in a cave with nothing more than a forge and some scrap iron and he'll invent a power armor combat suit with freakin' lasers.

Still, kinda cool in a low-rent A-Team way.

A-Team written by computer script (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451500)

A-Team - if there ever was a show that could have been written week and week out by a script that was it.

  1. Hot chick asks for help with Bad guys.
  2. Drug BA and fly to bad guys.
  3. A-Team roles in and acts all tough.
  4. Bad guys take guns and van and lock A-Team up in a place with plenty of tools and scrap metal and something that goes "BOOM"
  5. A-Team saves everyone by blowing shit up and no one getting killed

Mix in scenes of Mudoch being "crazy" and Face "charming" hot chick.

I'm sure that "writer" made millions.

Life's not fair.

Re:A-Team written by computer script (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451680)

I specifically remember the *one* episode where they actually shot someone. And made a *huge* deal in the plot about getting to him and getting him medical help.

Too funny, but when you air during kiddie hours, you can't be even hurting people apparently.

Re:A-Team written by computer script (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452270)

I still remember one episode where they shoot down a helicopter from a couple thousand feet, full of people. It spirals in and creates the classic fireball-boom. Next cut scene, everyone is crawling out of the burning wreckage and dusting themselves off. Gatta be one of the funniest episodes.

Re:A-Team written by computer script (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452630)

I'm sure that "writer" made millions.

Life's not fair.

Yeah, well maybe he knew the difference between "roles" and "rolls".

Autobots... (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452396)

Transform and roll out!

Creative, but predictable. (3, Insightful)

querist (97166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451300)

Desperation is the true mother of invention. These Lybian rebels are determined, and it's impressive what people can do when faced with something that important to them but a limited budget.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (5, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451354)

It's great to see. I really hope that when they succeed they turn this creative energy into building a democratic, secular, and scientific society that can be a benchmark for the rest of North Egypt and the Middle East to emulate.

I know - I'm a dreamer.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451804)

I know - I'm a dreamer.

No, a comedian.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451838)

A democratic and scientific society that could emulate europa and usa would be science fiction.

Obligatory Lewis Black quote (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452570)

"They say we're bringing democracy to Iraq. I can't wait to see how we do it."

Re:Creative, but predictable. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452450)

Don't forget to include North America in that list.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (1)

V. P. Winterbuttocks (2246736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451400)

Perhaps even more impressive is how much people can spend when faced with something that important to them and a virtually unlimited budget.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451632)

/me casually points toward the Pentagon.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451716)

... And come up with really expensive ways to do something that can be done easily.
I swear, the Army should recruit their engineers from hackaday's suppliers, some of the things I've seen done there, especially along with their costs, would make government-sponsored dev teams proud. I'm thinking especially of the Prometheus Device by Everett Bradford (yes, I know flamethrowers against people are illegal. Which is too bad, since we'll never get to see footage of real-life Firebats in combat...).

Re:Creative, but predictable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452404)

No biggie. Everyone knows firebats are best against zerglings and zealots anyway, the non-humans.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (2)

rwven (663186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451438)

True that. I was truly impressed by not only the engineering skills and resourcefulness of those people, but also their attitude toward the "task" at hand.

Re:Creative, but predictable. (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452446)

it's impressive what people can do ...with a limited budget.

When's the CIA is behind you, budget is not really an issue.

What's next? (4, Funny)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451358)

What comes next? Weapon grade Lego?

Re:What's next? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451452)

You're not far from the truth [youtube.com] .

Yup , mindstorm becomes firestorm (2)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451660)

However I have it on good authority that Gaddafi is lining up crack troops of 5 year olds to disable then break the enemy weapons within minutes by being sick all over them then trying to feed them to an angry cat.

Re:What's next? (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451664)

All Power Wheels and radio-controlled toy vehicles will now be subject to export restrictions.

already done (caltrops) (5, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451776)

What comes next? Weapon grade Lego?

Ever step barefoot on a 1x1 in the middle of the night on your way to the bathroom?

Re:already done (caltrops) (3, Funny)

Zcar (756484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452256)

Doesn't hurt as much as a d4.

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451778)

What comes next? Weapon grade Lego?

Super Soaker flame throwers.

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452164)

Didn't you ever step on a piece?

Re:What's next? (2)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452600)

Ever played with those Lego Mindstorms robotics kits? With a little creativity and hacking of the appropriate hardware you can end up with weapons grade Legos pretty quickly. Never underestimate the power of a creatively designed controller system.

The new Taliban? (3, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451372)

Do we know anything about these rebels other than they don't like Gaddafi? How do we know we're not helping an Al Queada style organisation get into power? I have a bad feeling about this.

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

zhub (1877842) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451446)

Be sure to tell Doc Brown. He's about to sell them some Plutonium.

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451558)

Be sure to tell Doc Brown. He's about to sell them some Plutonium.

Calm down, he's only going to make them a fake bomb with pinball machine parts...

Re:The new Taliban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452040)

They weaponized power wheels. You think they can't weaponize pinball?

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451516)

Do we know anything about these rebels other than they don't like Gaddafi? How do we know we're not helping an Al Queada style organisation get into power? I have a bad feeling about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council#Aims_and_objectives_of_the_national_council [wikipedia.org]

They certainly know how to write a press release that will appeal to their western helpers. Is any of it real? Who knows.

Re:The new Taliban? (4, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451700)

Something about the fact that they've formed their own central bank [cnbc.com] seems less than grass-roots to me.

Re:The new Taliban? (2, Insightful)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451606)

Libya has been an outright sponsor for terrorist organizations for years and when they backed off on the first world they moved in on Africa supplying arms, training and mercenaries to some of the most vicious rebel groups in the region. You can't get much worse than Gaddafi to begin with so the dice roll is worth the risk.

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451756)

Well thats the point - Gaddafi realises that the West can give him a good kicking if he pisses them off and since he's your typical dictator who values his own life he'll naturally restrict himself to what won't get him killed. Al Quaeda doesn't have that restriction - its a nebulous loose knit organisation and has thousands of brainwashed volunteers just ready to die for their idiotic cause. In my mind that is FAR more dangerous that some standard issue psychopath.

Re:The new Taliban? (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451622)

We won't know until it is done. If you know what happened in Afghanistan many years ago we helped the locals there push out the Russians and then deserted them leaving a power vacuum that was filled up by the Taliban. Hopefully, after the rebels win in Libya NATO (and not just the US) will quickly recognize the new government (which right now only a couple of countries have) and provide as much aid as we can - including helping to draft a secular constitution.

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

briansct (1857764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452274)

then deserted them leaving a power vacuum that was filled up by the Taliban. . . and provide as much aid as we can . .

You can't be serious . . .
You mean the power vacuum that we helped create by sticking our noses in where they don't belong.

Aid as in $$$ that we (US) don't have? Read about Greece on BBC yet today? The US is next! Keep upping the debt limit so that we can "help others" great idea!

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452454)

its an odd thing that i've been thinking about lately.

the US owes most of it's debt to China
that debt is under agreement that it is forfeited if China commits acts of war against the US
China is heavily doing corporate & government espionage - including "hacking"
the US recently said "hacking" is an act of war

it will be interesting how that plays out in the next decade - either way we are fucked money wise.

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452608)

no we are not. Stop listening to people who make money and power from scaring people.

IT's not great, but it's getting better, and is solvable. It's harped upon by people who want to kill government programs they have been trying to kill for year. Programs that have precaution and adjustments to adhere to change built in.

sadly,. the people saying this haven't bothers to understand what they are talking about, and when an actual, real world, dyed in the wool expert points out when they are wrong, they just sling so ad hom. Usually saying something like "That's what a liberal WOULD say."

Re:The new Taliban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451628)

Well, there is always some story [uruknet.de] to tell ...

Re:The new Taliban? (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451708)

This is exactly why we haven't given them surface to air missiles like we did in Afghanistan in the 80s. They tend to still be around later when they turnaround and start shooting at you.

Re:The new Taliban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451810)

All the Stingers that we gave to Afghanistan in the 1980s were unoperational by 2000. There's a battery in each launcher, and when it dies, the launcher is worthless.

Unfortunately, in the 1980s, the Taliban re-sold a bunch of those Stingers to Pakistan, who reverse-engineered it and started producing reasonably good duplicates.

Re:The new Taliban? (3, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452334)

Do you see the irony is claiming that battery life is a critical failure when commenting on an article that shows DIY modifications of weapons?

Re:The new Taliban? (2)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452548)

This is exactly why we haven't given them surface to air missiles like we did in Afghanistan in the 80s. They tend to still be around later when they turnaround and start shooting at you.

Well yeah. Plus it'd be pointless and self-defeating. We gave Stingers to the Mujahideen because they were getting stomped by Russian air power, and being the Cold War we obviously couldn't directly protect them.

Libya is completely different, because we have free reign to use our Air Force and Navy -- conveniently the branches of military not strained to the limit by two other wars -- and so Qaddafi can't do shit from the air. There's nothing for the rebels to use Stingers on.

I mean, even in the best case where the rebels are our BFFs until the end of time, some of whatever anti-air weapon we gave them would end up in the hands of the Libyan army and just cause more headaches for us. And the Air Force has been having so much fun with their AC-130s and A-10s! It'd be a shame to have to go back to just using the fast-flying jets for a while.

Re:The new Taliban? (2)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451800)

I heard about some defecting soldiers who were expecting to find Al Qaeda and foreign fighters among the rebels, but found only Libyans who simply don't want to be in a dictatorship. If they choose the path of fundamentalism, that's up to them.

Re:The new Taliban? (2)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452294)

And what in your experienced political opinion indicates that would be worse than Gaddafi, who openly and broadly funded anti-western terrorism? Just let a bunch of seemly oppressed citizens fight for their right for self-governance and check your paranoia at the door. If this all goes ass-over-tit for the West what exactly is going to change for us? It's about time that we all focus a little more on our internal political bullshit and quit worrying about what others may possibly do to us if the absolute worst outcome occurs. Trust me, the crap that internal politics is driving in Western Countys is way more damaging than anything that may happen in Libya after Gaddafi finally gets removed. If you really want to get your paranoia juiced up, ask yourself, what can our political overlords gain by distracting us away from their own internal actions with conflicts in North Africa/Middle East. What policy's are they now going to push for based on what's going on in the world? Magicians use distraction to perform their tricks; as in the zombie apocalypse, worry about what's in your own basement before you worry about what's in your neighbors yard. - I have tin foil hats for sale as well, btw.

weaponized powerwheel toys in my pants (0)

slashpot (11017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451396)

I have weaponized powerwheel toys in my pants.

This is why the US army has a challenge. (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451418)

Libyan Rebels cost for a robotic gun. About $500 after a few weeks of tinkering.
Probably fails 10% of the time.

US cost for a robotic gun. 5 million per unit which don't work when first deployed after a 300 million dollar development program taking 4 years to complete. Eventually 90% reliable in the field.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451468)

Ans the us robotic gun will fly and shoot missiles as well as be controlled from the other side of the globe.
And will be 99.9 percent reliable... and it will cost 9K per unit.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451668)

The Libyans don't need drones... they need something that allows them to provide covering/suppression fire while themselves safely behind cover. Nor do they have "9K" a pop to spend on drones, nor the Command and Control centre (not 9k..) to work them, nor the satellites (not 9k) to communicate with them.

Apples & Oranges...

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (3, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451978)

Kind of the point, really. Yes - we can all snicker at over-priced hammers. But the kind of tech that's being produced for big budget military is orders of magnitude more impressive than the hacks being described here (and there's nothing wrong with a good hack). But both have their place and can be appreciated for the technology involved.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451892)

This power wheel toy is a lot closer to a Sword [wikipedia.org] than an aerial drone.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452686)

my poorly illustrated point was that the comparison was false. I could have done better.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452296)

As mechanized weapons "advance" in capabilities, nations will be more and more able to wage war without citizens even noticing they're at war.

SOMEDAY we will cease turning golf courses and lawns into gardens, recycling *everything*, and drafting from all economic classes not just the poor and lower middle class. We will progress to the point of citizenry shrugging off war the way one shrugs off having left the porch light on.

Oh wait, we passed that milestone already. Progress.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452696)

I do not believe it will be 99.9% reliable in field conditions.
Every time we have a raid, we lose at last one multi-million dollar helicopter.
The failure rate on these things are classified so we can't really no. But if we lose one jet a year, we are not running a 99.9% reliability and we already lost a jet this year too.

I do not disagree that we have some impressive weaponly. I'm quite impressed with the Apache helicopters-- effective 2 mile range, day or night for a 1' target. And with our tanks- firing with similar accuracy while driving 60mph over desert terrain at moving hostile targets.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451476)

That's the difference between a government project versus someone doing something because he wants it done and done well. $800 hammer isn't just an amusing saying.

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (3, Insightful)

Octorian (14086) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452304)

People often forget where that $800 hammer comes from :-)

- You need to have a DARPA program to fund research into advanced nail insertion technology (ANIT).
- Then you have some FFRDC do an involved trade study that concludes that a hammer is preferably to the DARPA-developed ANIT project.
- A program executive office (PEO) now hosts an industry day presentation on the US Army's Tactical Hammer Needs to the tool-making industries
- The PEO now publishes a Request For Information (RFI) to solicit information from industry on steel hardening and handle-forming capabilities that could be used for the hammers.
- Finally a Request for Proposal (RFP) is published, along with a detailed performance spec, requirements list, and statement of work. There is a limited number of hammers desired, with options for buying more later. They also have to conform to various Military standards that no tool you'd buy at Home Depot would ever have to confirm to. Also, they do need to be made in the US in a facility that holds the proper security clearances.
- The PEO finally selects one of the submitted proposals, awarding the contract.
- One of the loosing contractors decides to file a formal protest, and drags the process out longer. Eventually a settlement is made, and the selected prime contractor takes them on as a subcontractor for handle-to-head integration.
- After several rounds of requirements engineering, systems engineering, and product R&D, along with approvals at preliminary and critical design reviews (PDR/CDR), the government gives the go-ahead to enter Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP).
- Testing eventually finds issues in the initial batch. Some design changes are made, costs are passed along, and eventually the hammer enters full-rate production (FRP).
- Following training and deployment, the MK42 Tactical Nail Insertion Device (code-name "Hammer") is deployed into the field.
- Meanwhile, nails are getting tougher, and follow-on program for the MK49 Objective Nail Banger is announced.

I could go on forever :-)

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452354)

/tinfoil_hat=on

You don't think that 800$ actually paid for a hammer, do you? ;)

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (1)

Octorian (14086) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452500)

I've heard that the so-called "black programs" are actually far more likely to be on-time and within-budget, due to not having to deal with all the same sorts of red tape :-)

Re:This is why the US army has a challenge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452048)

In other news, for 200 dollars you can buy a laptop with more processing power than some early supercomputers.

A major reason that army technical projects cost so much is that they don't want yesterday's technology, or even today's. Whenever you want to push the bleeding edge, you're going to have to pay through the nose (just ask anyone who has built a "God Box", only to watch their hardware become commodity level in 5 years).

Oh great (1)

mdarksbane (587589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451436)

Now we're going to get weapons-export laws on Tonka trucks, and mandatory background checks for a Barbie Jeep.

Re:Oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452654)

I don't see the problem here.

Why so long? (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451442)

I'm surprised it's taken this long for this to happen. I remember "hacking" my Big Track [wikipedia.org] when I was a kid by using the 1/8 inch jack that was used to activate the dumping bin to activate a solenoid. Of course my parents only allowed me to use a toy pellet gun.

Re:Why so long? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452702)

It didn't take this long, it's normal. But you didn't see videos glorifying it when it was Shiite militias [usnews.com] fighting us in Iraq.

Finally! (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451444)

My Big Traks [wikipedia.org] 's wait is almost over! Their day of glory is nigh!

COD (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451462)

Someones been playing to much Call of Duty. I'll be impressed if they manage to call in an SR-71.

sign of the times (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451492)

man, even the A-Team has to cut back...
I've often wondered whether powerwheels type toys would make a good hackable robot platform.

Of course this is ... (1)

cheetah_spottycat (106624) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451506)

... very entertaining propaganda movie :)

"REBEL" TODAY, JIHADIST TOMORROW !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451540)

I say, to hell with them all. Let Ghadafi blow them to smithereens !! Matter of fact, let the Taliban have Afghanistan. Let Shitites and Summis have Iraq. And by George, let Tibet FREE !! I mean, come on already !! Isn't it time WE do something to free Tibet !! Let's just PRETEND TIBET HAS OIL !!

Gives new meaning.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451574)

...to the "Pow Pow Powerwheels" jingle.

The US couldn't have done this for under $100mil (3, Insightful)

coastal984 (847795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451582)

It would have taken the Army 8 years and $100's of millions of dollars for the US to do this. *Sigh* We really should take a lesson in innovation.

Re:The US couldn't have done this for under $100mi (2)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451714)

Too much resources - everything is made to order. Design and production takes time from innovation, and the result is layer upon layer of bureacracy. Besides it's too cozy - your life and future are not under immediate threat and there's too much money at hand.

It's amazing what dedicated DIY types can come up with.

Re:The US couldn't have done this for under $100mi (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451946)

Which doesn't mean US troops on the line aren't doing plenty of DIY themselves.

Re:The US couldn't have done this for under $100mi (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452160)

This version probably breaks one in three times you try to use it, randomly discharges it's weapon whenever there's a small gust of wind, and occasionally blows up.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of solid DIY hacking when you're in a tight fix, but it's apples-and-oranges with large scale engineering projects.

Re:The US couldn't have done this for under $100mi (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452330)

Don't you think the troops would just love the handcrafted, improvised with *AMERICAN!* ingenuity, cobbled together with no quality control "devices" instead of the cold, heartless, tested, efficient, lighter, tougher, hardened equipment they are normally issued?

Re:The US couldn't have done this for under $100mi (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452672)

I think they would prefer not to roll the dice on whether their robot gun is going to shoot the enemy, shoot themselves, or just blow up spectacularly like a big "look who's hiding here" sign.

I work in EMS. Sure, I look at a $10k power stretcher [stryker.com] and go "I could do that for cheaper"

But could I? Here's the thing - for mission-critical equipment, you don't fuck around. Be smart about how you spend your money - which means you should get the tool you need and know it'll work right every time. Don't waste it, by any means, but if you mean it, you'll need to pay.

And most importantly, if we have an equipment failure, we can point at the manufacturer. I'm sure some of the price goes to a lawsuit fund, but again - this is what you pay for.

For the record, that stretcher has worked for more than 5 years and more than 50% over weight specs, with no problems yet or for the foreseeable future. And it was worth every penny.

Re:The US couldn't have done this for under $100mi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452204)

That's because of the paper trail. In the government every bolt and screw has to have a paper trail all the way back to the mine where the ore was collected as well as a certificate of authenticity that the bolt/screw has been designed precisely to spec and rigorously tested. Then the paper and ink that was used to make that paper trail has to have a paper trail all the way back to the lumber used to make the pulp etc. That's why there are a hundred desk jobs per one engineer.

Re:The US couldn't have done this for under $100mi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452338)

Well, Norway developed the Naval Strike Missile for just $300 million... Which is quite impressive considering that it is the only missile of its type available today.

Wires = low tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451584)

I can't believe this is on slashdot. They control it using long wires? Man, if they had some wireless stuff going on with an Arduino or something, then it would be news. Long wires are sooo 1990's. /sarcasm

Re:Wires = low tech (1, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451966)

I believe giving Arduinos to the rebels would violate the Geneva conventions about the proliferation of annoying wannabe hipster "hackers".

Re:Wires = low tech (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452700)

I can't believe this is on slashdot. They control it using long wires? Man, if they had some wireless stuff going on with an Arduino or something, then it would be news. Long wires are sooo 1990's. /sarcasm

Sarcasm aside, it shows a certain level of sophistication and planning. Hardwires can't be jammed, can't be detected, and are far more reliable.

The only downside I can see is limited range (which doesn't appear to be an issue with their use case) and that you can follow the wire back to the controller (which leads to interesting ambush possibilities).

Weapons Development (5, Interesting)

CPTreese (2114124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451638)

When I was in Iraq 2006-2008 I was often frustrated by how slow new weapons and defensive mechanism were developed by the DA. Often we would end up fabricating our own IED countermeasures using whatever material we found on our base. We often surprised ourselves with the effectiveness of the ideas we came up with. I've often wondered since then how much more effective that process would have been if it had been possible to attach a team of computer scientists and structural engineers to an Army unit. Instead we ended up trying not to get blown up and hope that someone somewhere was getting our INTEL and developing new vehicles and supplies to counteract a very intelligent and capable enemy.

BTW my time in Iraq pretty much solidified my opinion that our presence over there is pointless. Assume that we were able to establish a democracy in that country it wouldn't take long for it to fall. All it would take is one Sheik to disagree with the constitution and/or government and automatically the tribe under that Sheik would automatically support the Sheik and work to undermine the government. Tribe and family is far more important in that culture than individual rights and government. So why try to force on them a government that runs counter to their culture. Why is it assumed that everyone really wants to be in a democracy? There is no such thing as one government that fits all people. I tend to be more libertarian but that doesn't mean that a socialist style government is necessarily wrong. I only think that people should be given the choice of moving to whatever country best fits their belief system. Lol let the flaming begin.

Re:Weapons Development (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451932)

I've often wondered since then how much more effective that process would have been if it had been possible to attach a team of computer scientists and structural engineers to an Army unit.

http://www.usace.army.mil/ [army.mil]

US Army Corps of Engineers

Re:Weapons Development (2)

Mr. McGibby (41471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452292)

So where are they?

Re:Weapons Development (2)

briansct (1857764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452358)

Funny, your story reminds me of the one my Dad tells about being in the Army Corps of Engineers in Vietnam. Guys in his unit created their own Banana clip to add ammo capability to their assault rifles. Upper levels freaked when they saw what they had done, eventually though, their design made it back and became the curved design now used.

BTW I agree with your BTW!

Re:Weapons Development (1)

loimprevisto (910035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452522)

I'm surprised you didn't hear about JIEDO... they were around during that timeframe, but I guess they weren't as aggressive about getting the word out.

https://jknife.jieddo.dod.mil/ [dod.mil]

"Solider"? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451658)

So now they're pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow, pow-pow-pow-pow, pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-powerwheels!

And what's a "solider"?

News at 11 (1)

DJ Jones (997846) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451754)

Congress bans all Power Wheels.

"Think of the children" mentioned 100 times in bill.

Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451764)

I always wanted one of these as a kid. Awsome job libyan rebels!

but will they be ready for Christmas ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36451824)

? "more than that for your comment"

Dirty Harry 5: The Dead Pool (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36451992)

Weaponizing radio-controlled toy vehicles? Life imitates art.

Model rocket Stinger (3, Funny)

UttBuggly (871776) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452036)

Watching the video, and the homemade RPG reminded me of a SAM my cousins and I built as kids.

1) An Estes model rocket...a WAC Corporal...with a B8-4 motor.
2) A shipping tube with a launch rod glued to the bottom cap.
3) Copper strips glued/screwed to bottom cap with wires running outside to a Burgess B battery and momentary switch from Radio Shack.

You slid the rocket down the tube on the launch rod with the nichrome igniter wires touching the copper strips. Aim, press the switch, and whoosh....a balsa and cardboard Stinger.

We didn't have the C4 and blasting caps for the warhead portion (thankfully), but we could aim and fire a $4 rocket.

The nosecone was to be built from C4 with a blasting cap on the nose and underneath. If you missed a direct impact, the ejection charge from the motor would slam a washer into the underneath blasting cap and still detonate the missile. At least that was our thinking.

Again, we never had anything that actually exploded, but something like this would probably work against low-flying helicopters. A C or D motor would give more range, etc.

Yes, we had way too much time on our hands. One of our test flights did cause 3 casualties...to a neighbor's chickens. A fin came off on launch and the rocket arced into the neighbor's chicken yard at feeding time. The rocket didn't hit the massed birds but 3 apparently died from fright. We paid for the dead birds from allowances and odd jobs.

Years later, in the Air Force, I was assigned to the USAF Rocket Propulsion Lab at Edwards AFB. I managed not to kill or blow up anything there.

Power Wheels (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452074)

Give it 10 years, american children will be getting the same thing for christmas (batteries not included).

What's Next? (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452078)

I can just see an innocent looking Barbie pink corvette equipped with weapons ala Kitt from Knight Rider. Hasselhoff cannot be far behind.

Re:What's Next? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452578)

I can just see an innocent looking Barbie pink corvette equipped with weapons ala Kitt from Knight Rider. Hasselhoff cannot be far behind.

They're going to weaponize Hasselhoff?!?

Isn't that against the Geneva Convention?

Cool story - but ... (2)

shugah (881805) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452140)

Once this civil war is over, we will be left with taxi drivers, engineers and school teachers with experience in guerrilla warfare, improvised weapons and explosives manufacturing, sabotage and military / para-military tactics. I just hope they all return to teaching, driving hack and designing pipelines once Ghadaffi is deposed. Without "boots on the ground" NATO and the US has very little influence on the leadership and/or world view of the various factions that currently are united against their resident tyrant. But Ghadaffi is an equal opportunity tyrant who made enemies of both Muslim fundamentalists and progressive modern Muslims and secular Libyans. Currently all of these groups are united to oust Colonel Crazy, but if history is any indication, once that goal is in sight, they will start vying for who controls the future of Lybia. The Mujahideen, who were once western allies, begat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

As a soon to be parent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452262)

I'd like to know when these will be available at my local Toys R Us... for... my kid...

Not quite the powerwheels hack I was looking for (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36452414)

Some time ago someone pointed out to me that powerwheels toys would be dramatically more fun for the parents if they could be remote-controlled like giant R/C cars. As it is right now, when junior is out riding his mini-whatever-vehicle, he inevitably will get it stuck and not know how to put it in reverse. If the parents had a remote control for it that could override junior's input, they could throw it in reverse, drive it out, and bring junior back to the top of the driveway, without having to get off the front step.

Win, win, win.

Although putting a camera and a machine gun on it is pretty clever, too.

Remote control car with bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452432)

Umm, real life imitate game?

CoD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36452656)

They played to much Call of Duty imho :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?