backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 38 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Nov 21 at 3:16 PM

I-Ball  (Source: U.K. Ministry of Defence)
A new "grenade" camera could be used to help keep soldiers on the battlefield safer

A Scottish research company is developing a new "grenade" camera technology that would let British soldiers observe a hostile environment before sending soldiers in.

The "I-Ball" camera has an internal camera that offers a full 360 degree view of the entire area, and provides high-quality images filmed in real-time video, according to researchers.  It is able to transmit wireless content immediately after being launched into a hostile environment, even while it's in mid-air.

Image sensors and two fish-eye lenses inside the I-Ball help provide images and videos, with all collected data turned into a 360 degree image after being remapped using Field Programmable Gate Array.

"We have overcome some significant technological challenges in developing the I-Ball technology," said Paul Thompson, a Dreampact employee.  "The technology behind I-Ball is an exciting new development that has very significant potential across a range of military equipment and operational scenarios, particularly in difficult urban operations."

The I-Ball could be especially useful when soldiers are conducting missions in cities or crowded areas where they must enter a lot of buildings or rooms with a lot of blind spots where insurgents could be hiding.  Along with being tossed or rolled into an environment, it can also be fired by a grenade launcher.

The idea behind I-Ball came about after a proposal was submitted to the Ministry of Defence’s Competition of Ideas last year, with organizers immediately liking the idea behind I-Ball.  The Center for Defence Enterprise and other U.K. government agencies are becoming increasingly interested in working alongside companies in the private sector to create new technologies that can be used on the battle field.

The I-Ball is still in early development, but researchers hope it will be able to enter testing as soon as possible.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Effectiveness
By Inkjammer on 11/19/2008 2:39:38 PM , Rating: 4
While this sounds neat, I just can't imagine terrorists, ninjas or militant pirates failing to notice some robotic hamster camera ball rolling across the floor unless they're in the middle of a firefight, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd imagine this object, obviously hard shelled if it can be fired from a grenade launcher... would probably make a decent amount of noise rolling over floors or through installations. I just picture Metal Gear Solid style ! alerts appearing over enemy grunts noticing the ball rolling about.

Not only that, but how long would it take for soldiers to analyze the image -vs- the enemy mobilizing upon seeing an iBall roll across the ground. Things like that attract attention.




RE: Effectiveness
By Performance Fanboi on 11/19/2008 3:00:37 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think stealth would be intended with a device that you shoot through a window with a grenade launcher. The purpose of this device is advance intel - advance as in a few seconds to a few minutes and enemy numbers/armament type info. The fact that this would be noticed is not at all relevant to it's function.

If this thing save one soldier's life it is worth whatever the cost to deploy will be.


RE: Effectiveness
By Inkjammer on 11/19/2008 3:26:33 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, I agree on that. I have friends in Kabul. Still, I think in situations where seconds count, a short range device like this can have severe limitations while alerting the enemy (e.g. what if the grenade lands in a non-visible area? Behind a desk?).


RE: Effectiveness
By Clauzii on 11/20/2008 10:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
That's where the grenade function comes into play :D

"Go back to Your desk!", "Well sir, it's...hmm...gone. They just showed on CNN."


RE: Effectiveness
By rykerabel on 11/20/2008 4:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Old tech.
Done already.
Notice date here is may 2002:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News...


RE: Effectiveness
By Frank M on 11/19/2008 5:25:07 PM , Rating: 5
That's some pretty expensive cost/benefit analysis that you're doing there.


RE: Effectiveness
By foolsgambit11 on 11/19/2008 7:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I totally agree - there's got to be some limit on what we're willing to spend on 'protecting our troops'. I mean, the easiest way to keep a single soldier from dying would be to disband the military, but given the impossibility of that (<sound of Founding Fathers rolling in their graves>), there needs to be a common sense approach to keeping soldiers alive - say, don't spend more on fun toys to make their job safer than you would spend treating them for any injuries they might sustain if they didn't have the toy.

It needs to be fleshed out a little, but something like that makes sense, I think.


RE: Effectiveness
By cokbun on 11/19/2008 9:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Effectiveness
By rangerdavid on 11/20/2008 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
Founding Fathers do not roll in their graves when you mention disbanding the military. You must remember that we did not had a large standing army in this country until the Cold War, and the large professional army we have now is an exception, not the norm.


RE: Effectiveness
By Etsp on 11/19/2008 8:43:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If this thing save one soldier's life it is worth whatever the cost to deploy will be.
There is a simple solution to preventing all soldiers from dying in a foreign war: bribery. Bribe all of your enemies to stop doing what you are willing to go to war for, and no soldier gets in harms way. Sound kind of ridiculous? Yeah, I know.

The ideological concept of "You can't put a price on human life." is something nice that we like to tell ourselves, but we see in reality that decisions are made all the time to not spend more money, at the cost of human lives.

The best we can do is to spend the money we can in the places where it provides the most benefit. The sad fact is that people DO put a price on human life, and like a commodity, this price varies from place to place, and varies over time. The price is impossible to calculate, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

I'm all for spending money to save the lives of soldiers at war, don't get me wrong. But I want to spend money on only the most cost effective solutions, as that allows for the most soldiers to come home safe.


RE: Effectiveness
By MrBlastman on 11/19/2008 3:15:31 PM , Rating: 5
correction: ninjas will never give you the opportunity to release the observation grenade, so they will never have the potential failed opportunity to notice it.

They will chop your head off before it ever gets close to that! We all know ninjas flip out and kill people.

This isn't a fact, this is a law.

http://www.realultimatepower.net


RE: Effectiveness
By Smartless on 11/19/2008 8:07:25 PM , Rating: 3
Unless you're Chuck Norris.

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com

In which case, he already killed the ninjas and I-ball was just for show.


RE: Effectiveness
By Scrogneugneu on 11/20/2008 12:41:48 AM , Rating: 5
Chuck Norris doesn't use I-Ball. He throws his own eye through the window.

Which then proceeds to kill any enemies found.


RE: Effectiveness
By MrBlastman on 11/20/2008 9:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rate you up but seeing how I already posted... Give this man a 6. Thanks for the laugh - I really, really needed one this morning.


RE: Effectiveness
By JonnyDough on 11/20/2008 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
Chuck Norris-isms! Woot! My turn!

Chuck Norris doesn't do push ups. He pushes the world down.

Chuck Norris doesn't sleep. He waits.

Chuck Norris doesn't wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.

FACT: There is no such thing as global warming...Chuck Norris heard a Texas woman was cold, so he turned up the sun!


RE: Effectiveness
By Suntan on 11/19/2008 3:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
I see this more as a matter of “they know we’re out here, but we don’t know if they’re in there.” Kind of scenario.

I would feel more comfortable kicking a door down after I’ve already lobbed one of these into the window from the top turret of the hummer/apc and got a feel for what was inside.

-Suntan


RE: Effectiveness
By afkrotch on 11/19/2008 4:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. "WTF is that weird ball thing that just came soaring in. *shrugs....fires 2 rounds into it."

I think putting money into a much smaller object would be good. That or something with a bit more control.

You can turn the camera ball into a flashbang with cameras on it and add in some gyroscopes or something to move the object to a more secure location. This would help to at least try to hide the ball's existance. About the only use I can see for this isn't to be tossed into a room that you plan on clearing. Probably take too long to analyze the images.

Now this would be a perfect device for being in a live fire situation. Instead of coming out from your cover, you toss this ball around the corner, over the wall, down the street, etc to see where your enemies are at.

Fiber optic cameras would work for helping to clear rooms in buildings, while maintaining your stealth approach.


RE: Effectiveness
By Moishe on 11/21/2008 3:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think the idea is, by the time you see it and shoot it... (requires some accuracy) it already has your picture.


RE: Effectiveness
By mfed3 on 11/19/2008 4:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
This has nothing to do with stealth dude. Do you think that 2 or 3 platoons assaulting a group of buildings are really trying to clear buildings unnoticed? As soon as the first shot is fired, everyone knows they are there. The point is to save lives by A) not throwing grenades into rooms and killing civillians and B) allowing the soldiers to know if there are hostiles in the room they are entering


RE: Effectiveness
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2008 4:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm more questioning the effectiveness of a spy camera that explodes 5-10 seconds after a pin is pulled. If this is not the case, how is it like a grenade again? Just because something is in the shape of a ball and you throw it, that doesn't make it grenade-like.


RE: Effectiveness
By Veerappan on 11/20/2008 11:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Along with being tossed or rolled into an environment, it can also be fired by a grenade launcher.


Does it qualify as grenade-like if it can actually be fired by a grenade launcher?