Overheard this morning on Raytheon's second quarter earnings conference call with analysts, CEO Bill Swanson compared the acceptance of active denial technology to that of unmanned aerial vehicles. If Swanson's analogy is literally accurate, that would mean hundreds or thousands of such systems fielded within the next few years.
"The way I see AD [active denial] is almost the way UAVs and unmanned vehicles came out. Ten years ago you could count the number on one hand, and now there are thousands flying in Iraq ... And AD is the same way. You got to get through the barrier but once you do people are going to understand that it's better to shout and stun rather than shout and shoot and kill somebody."
It's no trivial issue for Swanson's missile system's division, which is almost alone in the industry in its pursuit of active denial systems. Swanson acknowledged that new missile sales cannot drive the division's growth into the future, so the success of spin-off technologies such as active denial are critical.
on July 24, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply
Once again the noise of the cash till drowns out common sense.
When, and if, we get to the point where all of this astounding non-lethal tech is actually deployed to burn, deafen, blind and otherwise antagonise people, what happens next?
What happens next is that an angry crowd with no non-lethal means of response will respond lethally, as fast as they can.
The best that can be hoped for ADS and its ilk is that they will delay the shooting for as long as it takes people to get seriously pissed off with them.
I would imagine the fastest way to get every AK in the neighbourhood opening up at you (from around the corner) will be to light up an ADS.
Good luck with that.
on July 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply
To depart on a tangent for a moment, instead of AD = UAV, has anyone considered AD vs UAV?
on July 25, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply
Oooo. Go on ...
on July 25, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply
Well it just struck me that point a relatively high energy microwave emitter at UAV probably isn't going to do it any good. If AD is supposed to deter people by suddenly and greatly raising the temperature of the outer layers of their skin, then that would likely also play havoc with the systems on a UAV. Plus of course electronics and microwaves just don't get on...
on July 28, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply
Problem with this whole thesis re ADS: The "Won't use it on your own people" problem.
No court would eeeeeever allow ADS to be used in the US - and I don't see a police department shelling out for something so likely to get them sued over.