TESTUDO............... fikk me its a savage remote controll car with a video camera on it , mine cost alot less than that, about 500 quid for the car and add whatever camera you like, try contreolling it mind , not easy and capable in exess of 70kph!!........................can't see this taking off somehow!
The car seems a waste of money, more kit to carry and if the infantry really wanted something to fulfill a remote obs role then the IEDD teams already have a small remote vehicle that could be used. (Not the teams toy of course - get your own!)
And will it be operating on COTS based transmitters and receivers? No thanks, RF sensitive munitions and that thing whizzing around like a chimp on crack isn't my idea of a good time. Plus did you see the funky camo paint job done on it? Looks like a sooped up Big Trak
Actually I do however perhaps not as much as you do but I'm not about to enter into an argument about who is or isn't right. A range of different detonators can be made using easily available parts which operate on common radio frequencies, using a radio controlled vehicle in the vicinity could cause premature detention, whether intentional or not.
This would only be possible if the perpetrator were to use servo type devices. Very old technology that is not used in devices due to its unreliability and possiblility of servo jitter.
Devices that we encounter utilise encoded information within the frequency to preclude accidental initiation.
The British military currently uses a number of RCVs specifically for dealing with IEDs. These operate without danger of initiating devices. Any new remote equipments would be subject to the same requirements. The same goes for all our comms systems, ECM and anything else that utilises the electromagnetic spectrum.
Yes I meant receivers. I have seen some (and certainly not the range of improvised munitions that you have judging my perception of your background) explosive devices which have used model RC parts to initiate them. I'm aware that many now use encoded information for various reasons including false signals, safe setting etc.
My earlier post was not thought thru, given your remark about the range RCVs that are in operation. Not being at the event, but several colleagues were, and having seen photos/literature of some of the UGV's I was rather disappointed by the build quality of them. The Grand Challenge event was last year was interesting to say the least in seeing a range of demo UGV/UAVs from a host of background, some extremely good, many quite dire.
There were a couple of combined systems, certainly last year and the SATURN system appears to be one of those which have developed further. Though that system doesn't look like it is man-portable. One system which looked quite good and as been around for a while is that grenade/camera style ball that is thrown into a room or building so troops can see what's inside prior to entry. I think that is probably a practical sized system, anything significantly bigger becomes difficult to carry and that rather defeats the purpose.
How about a non-RF comms link that works on microphones and loudspeakers? The units could emit a series of beeps that allowed messages to be passed between them ... data rate might be a bit limited though, and power requirements could be hard to meet.
Going a step further, short and long beeps could be used, and combinations of them could represent individual commands, or letters of the alphabet. Oh, wait...