Could Pentagon's Direct Energy Ray Gun Put an End to High Speed Police Chases?

Ronnie Schreiber
by Ronnie Schreiber
could pentagon s direct energy ray gun put an end to high speed police chases

There are many people who feel every federal agency does not require the kind of machine gun-toting SWAT teams that have proliferated in Washington over recent decades. Also, for 140 years, since the passing of the Posse Comitatus Act, Americans have thought that keeping military and police functions separate is a good idea. In recent decades, as billions of dollars worth of surplus military equipment was made available to American police agencies following the first Gulf War and subsequent military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, concern has been raised over that equipment leading to both militarization and corruption of local police and sheriff’s departments.

Still, from coagulants designed to staunch battlefield wounds to Global Positioning Satellites originally used by our military, some technologies are just too good to be restricted to being used to break stuff and kill folks. Now, a direct energy “ray gun” developed to protect military installations from car and truck bombs could have civilian uses. The device focuses microwave energy at a vehicle, overloading its electrical system and causing the Engine Control Unit to reboot over and over, disabling the vehicle.

In light of the recent attack in Toronto where a driver killed 10 pedestrians with a van, the Radio Frequency Vehicle Stopper could prove useful in protecting the public from terrorists and deranged individuals, but one version of the device could also be used to stop high speed police chases — which endanger both members of the public and law enforcement officers.

The Pentagon Is Making a Ray Gun to Stop Truck Attacks | @DefTechPat

— Defense One (@DefenseOne) April 25, 2018

The RFVS is a product of at least eight years of development at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Non Lethal Weapons Program. As indicated by the program’s title, the device will not harm the vehicle’s driver, a feature that makes it suitable for civilian use. It also only temporarily disables the vehicles, so police departments won’t have to worry about lawsuits for damaged property, something of little concern to the military.

David Law heads the JNLWP, and he’s quite confident in the Vehicle Stopper’s effectiveness. “Anything that has electronics on it, these high-powered microwaves will affect,” Law said in a statement reported by Defense One. “As long as the [device] is on, it holds the vehicle stopped.”

Law’s team has developed two versions. For force protection, i.e. keeping truck and car bombs from exploding near military checkpoints and bases, there is a stationary device with a large dish antenna. It has a range of a few hundred meters. Presumably, for civilian use it could be prepositioned near facilities though to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks like power stations or any place where large crowds gather.

A smaller, portable, pickup truck mounted version brings to mind the loudspeaker mounted on Elwood and Jake’s Bluesmobile, and, with a range of just 50 meters, it is intended more for hot pursuits. In military use, the driver is expected to outrun the attacker, pull in front of them, and turn on the device. In civilian use I can see it being deployed the same way police departments put down spike strips ahead of fleeing vehicles.

Since the device is technically a radio jamming device, it might need a waiver to avoid conflict with the Federal Communications Act.

Join the conversation
4 of 27 comments
  • JGlanton JGlanton on Apr 30, 2018

    It's neat, but until it's on a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft with longer range effectiveness it's going to have limited use. Mostly protecting fixed hardened locations, which are already protected with other means. It's not like these will be on a lot of patrol cars driving around looking for robbers to chase, and it'll never be where you need it for terrorists doing vehicle attacks on soft targets. I guess if it's cheap enough it can be installed on highway overpasses, bridges and tunnels in areas with a lot of police chases. Border crossings.

  • Turbo_awd Turbo_awd on Apr 30, 2018

    Hmm. 300kw in a portable generator? That's 400 hp, just for comparison. Sure, it might be a bit more compact than a V8 if using a turbine, but IIRC, turbines also aren't as efficient? Or are they more? I.e. if it takes 400 hp to run the ray gun, that's burning pretty fast. I'm sure you could run through a gallon of fuel in a couple of minutes.. (diesel? gasoline?). So then you gotta refill the tank eventually. Also, how wide/long an effective swath does this project? How long does a car on a high speed chase take to stop? 150 ft from 60-70 mph is pretty good, IIRC. If doing 100, in a not-designed-for-speed (i.e. not a $100K+ car), you might take 200-300 feet to stop. So clearly, this can't be positioned by the side of the road facing across the street - it has to be put on the street facing hundreds of feet back and still be effective throughout the range - otherwise the disabled car is like a curling rock, hurtling towards the ray gun. I guess if the guy with the gun's also driving, almost matching speeds or something? I.e. if you project between 500-300 feet behind the truck, and the car skids 200+ feet, comes out at 300 feet behind you, and starts up again. And how wide - you can still steer (except for electrical steering?), so you could possibly put it in neutral, wait until going 30-40 and turn to the side to get away.. Seems like there's way too many ways for this to go wrong. For the stationary use, it makes sense - if you come within 100 or 200 feet or whatever, your car gets disabled and stalls. And you hit the wall/building at 30 mph instead of 130.

    • See 1 previous
    • Tele Vision Tele Vision on May 02, 2018

      Turbines are hugely efficient at their designated RPM for maximum efficiency - and they'll burn nearly anything. Starting one, though is an exercise in waste. I read that an M1A1 uses 19 gallons of fuel just to start its engine.

  • Lou_BC I realized it wasn't EV's burning by the absence of the usual suspects.
  • Kwik_Shift A manual bug eye WRX wagon (2001-03) would interest me more.
  • El scotto Ferrari develops a way to put a virtual car in real time traffic? Will it be multiple virtual players in a possible infinite number of real drivers in real time situations?This will be one of the greatest things ever or a niche video game.
  • El scotto It's said that many military regulations are written in blood. Every ship's wheel or aircraft joystick has a human hand on it at all times when a ship or aircraft are under power. Tanks, APC's and other ground vehicles probably operate under the same rules. Even with those regulations accidents still happen. There is no such thing as an unmanned autopilot, ever. Someone has to be on the stick at all times.I do not think MB understands what a sue-happy nation the USA is. The 1st leased MB in a wreck while this Type 3 "Semi-Autonomous" driving, or whatever it is called, will result in an automatic lawsuit. Expect a class action lawsuit after the 1st personal lawsuit is filed. Yes, new MB owners can afford and ever are lawyers.Mercedes Benz; "The best wrecks or nothing!" Oh and has anyone noticed that Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura, the gray suit with white shirt and striped tie, automobile companies have stayed away from any autonomous driving nonsense?
  • Merc190 Very streamlined but not distinctive enough for a Mercedes. And besides, the streetcar of the early 20th century seems a far more efficient and effective method of people moving in essentially an autonomous manner. A motor car is meant to be driven with proper attention to what's important in every situation. To design it otherwise is idiotic and contradictory.