Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 08/19/2006 View Fri 08/18/2006 View Thu 08/17/2006 View Wed 08/16/2006 View Tue 08/15/2006 View Mon 08/14/2006 View Sun 08/13/2006
1
2006-08-19 Home Front: Politix
Boeing eyes billion-dollar deal to watch border
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2006-08-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#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||   2006-08-19 00:21|| Front Page Top

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

#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||   2006-08-19 00:58|| Front Page Top

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

#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||   2006-08-19 01:59|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-08-19 03:13|| Front Page Top

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

#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||   2006-08-19 09:39|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-08-19 09:48|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-08-19 12:59|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G  2006-08-19 13:09||   2006-08-19 13:09|| Front Page Top

#12 Remoteman, where do you work that requires a remote weapon system?
Posted by Scott R">Scott R  2006-08-19 14:11|| http://five24.net]">[http://five24.net]  2006-08-19 14:11|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-08-19 14:17|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-08-19 15:26|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-08-19 18:06|| Front Page Top

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

23:59 gorb
23:51 trailing wife
23:45 gorb
23:10 Mizzou Mafia
23:10 Barbara Skolaut
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:05 gorb
23:04 trailing wife
23:00 gorb
22:54 gorb
22:47 DanNY
22:43 gorb
22:34 Duh!
22:29 SR-71
22:28 Duh!
22:20 CrazyFool
22:16 3dc
22:08 3dc
22:04 DathVader
22:01 Bobby
21:59 RD
21:58 DathVader
21:57 Bobby
21:57 DathVader









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com