We might be closer to 2142 than we think.

Er, what's not to get excited about the answer to IEDs?

Plus, it's also a good break from negative news on war failures in Iraq.

And government stories

2007-01-11 19:50:50

#13

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6375|Columbus, Ohio

Archer wrote:
viper313 wrote:
Is it me or is this guy just a little too excited about the suit?
Er, what's not to get excited about the answer to IEDs?

Plus, it's also a good break from negative news on war failures in Iraq.

And government stories

Sorry, but that suit is not an answer to IED's.

2007-01-11 19:52:50

#14

Archer: rapes face; +161|6432|Canuckistan

usmarine2007 wrote:
Archer wrote:
viper313 wrote:
Is it me or is this guy just a little too excited about the suit?
Er, what's not to get excited about the answer to IEDs?

Plus, it's also a good break from negative news on war failures in Iraq.

And government stories
Sorry, but that suit is not an answer to IED's.

Well, nothing is, if you're dead on the radius of the blast.

But it helps more than hurts, right?

So assuming that, I could conclude that the probability of being killed by an IED would be much, much, less.

2007-01-11 19:53:29

#15

viper313: One Shot, One Kill; +53|6650|Minnesota

Granted, it's nice to see someone not in the gov or in a huge corp develope something for our guys overseas but this product just seems like one of those things that you see on the news for a week or so and everyone's excited but then you never hear of it again and our troops will never see it.

2007-01-11 19:54:34

#16

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6375|Columbus, Ohio

Archer wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
Archer wrote:

Er, what's not to get excited about the answer to IEDs?

Plus, it's also a good break from negative news on war failures in Iraq.

And government stories
Sorry, but that suit is not an answer to IED's.
Well, nothing is, if you're dead on the radius of the blast.

But it helps more than hurts, right?

So assuming that, I could conclude that the probability of being killed by an IED would be much, much, less.

No. IED's ignite fuel and ammo in vehicles. No suit will help. Only luck will get a grunt by.

2007-01-11 19:57:31

#17

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6653

he said he hopes Canadian soldiers get it hmmm sounds like Canadian want to invade U.S. with a new bear suit lol, any who i saw a different photo which U.S. designed for the soldier of the future this is how it looks. I think the one U.S. designed looks more realistic in my opinion you be the judge.

https://www.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_FutureUni-1.jpg

2007-01-11 20:01:02

#18

Ender2309: has joined the GOP; +470|6579|USA

the other guy's one is better.

2007-01-11 20:05:29

#19

Home: Section.80; +447|6855|Seattle, Washington, USA

Sweet suit. And we might be closer to 2142 than we think? Yes. Yes, we might just be.

2007-01-11 20:08:51

#20

Archer: rapes face; +161|6432|Canuckistan

Ender2309 wrote:
the other guy's one is better.

Which one?

And yeah, we'll be global warmed [the most disastrous effects] pretty soon, but I'm concentrating on the Iraq war right now.

2007-01-11 20:12:04

#21

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6653

Archer wrote:
Ender2309 wrote:
the other guy's one is better.
Which one?

And yeah, we'll be global warmed [the most disastrous effects] pretty soon, but I'm concentrating on the Iraq war right now.

yeah Global warming is coming, dont think the bear suit be able to stop it

2007-01-11 20:46:16

#22

C01d Fusion: Member; +7|6529

You're looking at my clock?
rofl...intresting placement

2007-01-11 20:58:08

#23

thtthht: maximum bullshit; +50|6338|teh alien spaceshit

The suit will definatly help against bullets and a bit of IEDs. However, it won't be fully protecive against .416 and the .50 cal because of the force it carries with them. A .50 cal I believe has about 10,000 joules of energy. 85 is lethal. With that much force, the suit will eventually break open, and the soldier will die. Also, the force of the impact can also injure a soldier significantly, even if the suit is not penetrated. Same with the IEDs. The force of the explosion will cause such force that no matter how powerful a suit is, truama will still kill you. However, I do see this as a much more survival against handheld weapons, suck as an ak-47. i would give the suit a 84. Besides, no soldier would allow a guy with a .50cal to hammer him countinously.

2007-01-11 21:05:04

#24

Monkeyman911: Dun wori, it's K.; +76|6430|California, US

Looks to ahead of its time.
I just can't imagine US or Canadian Soldiers wearing those in a like Iraqi Desert.
lol
looks pretty cool though

2007-01-11 21:11:46

#25

Jbrar: rawr; +86|6549|Winterpeg, Canada

This is the same guy who came up with the special stucko paste to help against fires is it not? Guy's got imagination, something larger corporations are lacking, and he's also not afraid to display it. Most government funded projects are kept secret, which results in less input, resulting in it not being what it could possibly be.

I'd like to see the suit put on a shooting range, on a dummy ofcourse.

BF2S Forums We might be closer to 2142 than we think.

viper313 wrote:

Archer wrote:

viper313 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Archer wrote:

viper313 wrote:

Archer wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Archer wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

Archer wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

Board footer