You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Boeing eyes billion-dollar deal to watch border
2006-08-19
WASHINGTON — Boeing wants to guard the nation's borders — for a couple of billion dollars. Boeing's St. Louis-based defense division has developed a plan — combining radar and laser technology, sensors and cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles, other surveillance equipment and rapid communications tools — to keep illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, potential terrorists and gun runners from entering the United States.

It's done so at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security, which, seeking better ways to protect U.S. borders, a few months ago asked corporations with expertise in systems integration to supply ideas and technological know-how.
So it's a virtual, not physical, fence that they want to build.
That started a process that has received scant public attention — partly because federal officials have been tight-lipped about it — despite the intense public debate over immigration and the role of border security in the war on terror.

The competition for the contract ends next month, when federal officials will choose Boeing or one of four rivals: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Ericsson of Sweden. The firms have devised a variety of ways to combine technology — existing or to be developed — with the government's border patrol and infrastructure.

Because the government wants to benefit from the firms' high-tech experience and capability to innovate, it's given them a lot of leeway, noted Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank on defense and homeland security issues. "This is a form of creeping privatization or at least of outsourcing," Thompson said. "With the traditional approaches of border patrols clearly not up to the challenge of securing the borders, the government seems more inclined to assign key responsibilities to industry. It is going outside of its traditional offices to pursue high-tech, imaginative alternatives."

The program is known as the Strategic Border Initiative network, or SBInet.
Fred, there has just got to be something in this for WoT-focused weblogs.
Geography is a challenge, says Robert Villanueva, Boeing's spokesman for the project.
No, really?
"There's desert on the south and mountains on the north along with sections of the Great Lakes," he said. "There are different types of terrain that are not just not routinely monitored, where the technology will come in handy, so we can see what's going on 24/7 — and notify the officers that there's a border penetration they need to get to.

"Without building a hard fence, we're going to make the border a virtual system," he said. "We'll be able to detect who's crossing the border why and when and at what point, and hopefully identify whether they're terrorists or drug smugglers, weapons smugglers or people hoping to join the work force."

The government is saying little, other than that it will award the winner-take-all contract by the end of the current fiscal year Sept. 30.
Posted by:Steve White

#16  Anyone wearing earplugs can make it across!
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-19 23:59  

#15  ScootR, I work for a manufacturer of remote weapon systems. Smaller size stuff that mounts 7.62mm M-240 machine guns. Works on vehicles or you can pop it off and put it on a tripod. We also have units specifically designed for fixed asset security. They only open up when, uhm, needed.
Posted by: Remoteman   2006-08-19 18:06  

#14  "It would be much cheaper for the Pres to make a nice little speech announcing that effective immediately anyone crossing into US territory is subject to being shot on sight by any citizen."

In Arizona and in Texas, this is already the case, at least if the land they cross into is privately owned, like a ranch. Ranchers have the right in both states to shoot trespasssers on sight-- a nice holdover from the cattle-rustling land-war days. (I'm not sure about New Mexico though.) Most ranchers who have the legal right to shoot refrain from doing so, unless the illegals attempt to stay on their land and commit burglary, vandalism or some other crime.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-19 15:26  

#13  remoteman is right, IMO, both about the approach and about what can be done here and now with current technologies and things in development.

my own opinion, FWIW (and that may or may not be much LOL) is that a virtual fence is better because once in place it can deal with the problem both of detection and of deterrence, provided we are willing in fact to stop illegal entry. Note that the MApsand system does allow some degree of immediate determination as to whether people crossing are drug mules, your basic unarmed, want-a-job type or your MS13 thugs with night vision goggles, body armor and an attitude to kill US cops and border patrol (which they have done and have tried).

Over time, it's in our interests for Mexico to become prosperous and stable ... at that point, the virtual fence doesn't get in the way of peaceful commerce which benefits us both.

BUT ... build it now.

JMHO
Posted by: lotp   2006-08-19 14:17  

#12  Remoteman, where do you work that requires a remote weapon system?
Posted by: Scott R   2006-08-19 14:11  

#11  Fences are appropriate in urban and travelled areas, like here in San Diego, where it's worked well. Out in cactusland and mountain terrain, it's not as appropriate, and the virtual fence is.

From one who says build it. Now.
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-19 13:09  

#10  Fence barriers are low tech and can be easily overcome (or tunnedled under). Skidmark, the Mapsands system is real...good find. You work for one of the vendors?

But all of these proposed systems need real teeth, more even than the acoustic dissuaders on the Mapsands system. It is the lethal component that will be the real element that says Don't Go There.

The answer is remote weapon systems, something that has already been incorporated into Mapsands by my company. Very effective stuff. They can be integrated into the other systems as well.

Once you've established intent with less lethal barriers then it is time to get serious.
Posted by: Remoteman   2006-08-19 12:59  

#9  Precisely KBK. Why authorize a one-time fee $300m for a fence and some guard towers using existing recources when you can establish a 12-29 year program costing a gazillion dollars, administered by a swarm of DoD or Homeland Security feather merchants.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-08-19 09:48  

#8  I was wondering what was behind Congress' voting down the funds allocation for the border fence.

Silly me, they hadn't had time to arrange the deals in the backchannel.
Posted by: KBK   2006-08-19 09:39  

#7  Any help from LOCKHEED? > Stars-n-Stripes - Lockheed proposes unmanned, robotic armed F-35.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-08-19 04:29  

#6  MAPSANDS™ system architecture was designed to secure areas from less than one mile to several hundred continuous miles through the integration of a series of sensors and transducers that collect and share data, analyze it and deliver a programmed response based on predetermined rules of engagement.

MAPSANDS™ relies on directional non-lethal high frequency focused acoustical transducer arrays to project verbal warnings and aversive warning tones to intruders. These devices are designed to be effective at ranges in excess of 1000 meters and support determining an approaching individual(s) intent. Additionally an advanced programmable airburst munitions delivery system, from Vision Technologies System (VTS) has also been integrated into MAPSANDS™ and is capable of accurately targeting and dispersing other non-lethal deterrents, such as tear gas, malodorants or pepper spray at ranges in excess of 1500 meters.

MAPSANDS™ uses a network of real time position sensors to provide detection, tracking and targeting coordinates. These coordinates are continuously feed to the transducer arrays and the airburst munitions system in order to insure accurate targeting once the system has been engaged by an aggressor(s).

http://www.usgn.com/
Posted by: Skidmark   2006-08-19 03:13  

#5  Even if you detect them, who is gonna chase them down. It would be much cheaper for the Pres to make a nice little speech announcing that effective immediately anyone crossing into US territory is subject to being shot on sight by any citizen.
Posted by: SOP35/Rat   2006-08-19 01:59  

#4  Who needs a physical fence when you've got swarms of autonomous killbots?
Posted by: SteveS   2006-08-19 01:51  

#3  Any proposal that does not include the physical barrier is asinine. It would take shitloads more Border Agents and a coupla thousand of Joe's Tent Cities, every year... then what? Huh? C'mon you brilliant Homeland Security Wizards, then what? Ad infinitum?

HS is dumb as dirt if they accept any bid which does not build effective physical barriers.
Posted by: flyover   2006-08-19 00:58  

#2  motes with gators
Posted by: Captain America   2006-08-19 00:34  

#1  Put up two parallel fences. Decorate with LOTS of warning signs in english, spanish, and pictures. Put land mines in between the parallel fences. End of problem.
Posted by: DMFD   2006-08-19 00:21  

00:00