Brit JIN

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

shek RE:Brit JIN 6/16/2005 9:22:07 AM

The detonation device is not always co-located with the shell. It's not far away, destroying the detonation device will often still leave a live shell that then has to be neutralized. .50 cal will usually destroy a detonation device, so 30mm will definitely do the job. However, if the IED is in the heart of an urban center, you then have risks due to ricochet far beyond the IED site. So, the JIN is a better option that should always get the job done the first time, meaning less time on target. As far as a 155mm round, the Stryker with 14.5mm armor has never been penetrated and the IED blasts typically only scratched the paint off the ceramic armor. However, IEDs have gotten much bigger than 155mm in many cases and some insurgents are smart enough to know how to use tamping to better focus and direct the blast. I know that doesn't answer the specifics of your question, but should provide some reference.

Quote Reply

lightningtest RE:Brit JIN 6/16/2005 1:35:37 PM

Ta Shek, I didn't think about seperate detonators located away from the main charge. I guess (now you told me) the detonator needs an antenna which it wouldn't be wise to have poking out of the ground above the charge. Once the detonator is disabled is the idea to disrupt but not detonant the charge? Or alternatively is detonation OK as people would be moved away beforehand? If the lightning generator has to approach to within 30ft of the device how heavily armoured would it need to be inorder to survive 8 out of 10 of the IED's encountered. For example do a Snatch or Hummer crew survive 30ft away from 8 out of 10 IED's? I am a civie and havn't set foot in a war zone. Thats the reason I am asking these dumb questions. Me and my collegues could probably provide the electricty to do this kind of job. However our technology would needs a method of breaking down the air to allow the passage of electricity to the detonator or main charge. To do this would need a remote controled device (or soldier somewhat braver than I) to approach the IED and drap a thin wire onto it. This could then be vapourised and leave a conductive channel which the rest of the current pulse would be able to flow down.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Brit JIN 6/16/2005 8:20:40 PM

"Once the detonator is disabled is the idea to disrupt but not detonant the charge?" from a different perspective. once you isolate the detonator or signal transmission path the explosive itself is fundamentally benign. the primary focus is to terminate the primary trigger from carrying out its job. ie detonator, transmitter. thats why hardwired bombs are more of a headache. if it is hardwired then that implies that the operator has a visual - by association it means that they can trigger the IED on anything that comes near it. The Brits and Israelis have been dealing with remote controlled mines for decades - some of the gear currently being used in Iraq is their technology. whats needed is a way to neutralise hardwired IEDs Short of throwing a lassoo charge ringlet around the device to try and kill the landline - it gets a bit harder. Even if you kill it with a charged "ringlet" you don't know whether the compression from those charges going off is going to trigger the IED itself. (ie is it volatile material or benign like C4) thats my understanding of the issues anyway.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Brit JIN 6/16/2005 10:51:24 PM

Your best bet is to contact someone from the US TF IED or the UK/Aus equivalents to speak direct. They can give you a feel as to whether your technology would be feasible or not. I only have a basic knowledge of demo and so I don't know all the permutations and combinations that you can come up with to detonate an IED, but the three basic ways are hard wired command detonated as gf already pointed out, timer, and remote command detonated (cell phone, cordless phone, 2-way radio, key fob, etc. etc. - any means of transmission). With the remote control detonated IED, you would have the receiving device that sends its current to an electric blasting cap that is setup to the IED. Thus, the detonator can be attached directly to the IED or you can run line from the electric blasting cap to the detonator to get in a better position for clearer line of sight transmissions. I don't know what the latest enemy techniques are and that info would be classified anyways, so that's why you would need to talk to a TF IED guy and let them know your idea and they will tell you if it would be competitive in relation to what's already fielded and what is in the pipeline to be fielded. Hope this helps and gives you a better idea of the problem you are up against.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Brit JIN 6/16/2005 11:06:51 PM

"Your best bet is to contact someone from the US TF IED or the UK/Aus equivalents to speak direct." If you have something of interest then I can certainly put you in contact with the Australian end. But, there are provisions which you need to be aware of and are actually universal between Aust, Canada, US, UK and Germany. 1) We will suggest that you approach your countries own military research people first. that is a protocol issue 2) We will check with your country of origin to make sure that we aren't coming in blind or that we aren't stepping on toes - again a protocol issue 3) We do share data with our principle allies. For Aust that means NATO and some in our immediate area (where approp) 4) We do share technology in high risk areas such as those dealing with the War on Terrorism. That is done so that scientists and engineers from our allies can also share in the research and provide support and solutions to fast track development (that is project specific, but generally that is the norm) The above processes are the mormal process-de-rigeur for us and our allies. Countries that step outside of that process demonstrate a failure of goodwill and tend to get cut out of critical development by the others. I've seen it happen to one of the NATO members (no names) - so we do play by strong processes of probity and correctness. In your case, Qinetic would seem to be the approp body to approach. However, I would also suggest approaching the MOD and Army directly first. If the UK model is the same as Aust, then if a technology demonstrater is driven by interest from the stakeholder (eg in your case Army) then it will in all likelihood get driven faster. If not, then someone in research may veto development or interest early as they 1) don't understand the significance. 2) are strapped for resources 3) make a bean counting decision. The stakeholder approach is better as they will establish a case for continuance. They may also be in a position to make early reccomendations on what they need for you to get more attention applied to your solution. you've got to learn to work the crowd. ;)

Quote Reply

Nichevo RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/16/2005 11:24:48 PM

Has any work been done in cryonics? Would a tank of liquid nitrogen (or helium, if it mattered) poured, sprayed, etc, on either the detonator, the blasting cap itself or the explosive have any effect?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/16/2005 11:33:10 PM

"Has any work been done in cryonics? Would a tank of liquid nitrogen (or helium, if it mattered) poured, sprayed, etc, on either the detonator, the blasting cap itself or the explosive have any effect?" the issue is how sophisticated the device is. ie, issues of tampering control, reduncancy etc... I know that they've used liquid nitrogen "injection" to breach locks etc... this isn't exactly the kind of place where you want to have those kinds of discussions anyway. ;)

Quote Reply

lightningtest RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/17/2005 5:37:00 AM

gf0012-aust,shek thanks for the advice, I'll be following it. Shek and others here seem to be the end users of this kind of tech. I can't get such insight thorugh other channels. How important is it for a piece of bomb disposal equipment to be airmobile when considering the iraqi situation? The angle I am comming from is whether making the device armoured and consequently heavy is counter productive with regard to getting it to the place it is needed. If the device could be assembled on site from modules which can be carried by helicopter. Perhaps then the issue would become whether armoured vehicle already in the area could offer DC power/protection/mobility to the device and operators?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/17/2005 6:02:03 AM

"How important is it for a piece of bomb disposal equipment to be airmobile when considering the iraqi situation? The angle I am comming from is whether making the device armoured and consequently heavy is counter productive with regard to getting it to the place it is needed. If the device could be assembled on site from modules which can be carried by helicopter. Perhaps then the issue would become whether armoured vehicle already in the area could offer DC power/protection/mobility to the device and operators?" not speaking for shek, but I'll give you an insight into what some are looking for. Military definition is "portable and attractive" ie, one person can unload and deploy the gear, then it goes up, ideall its able to be carried in as few Zero cases as possible. unless you're building a robot built like a "transformer" - it needs to be able to be carted in a std 20m shipping container. the larger it is, the more of an imposition it is - and the more that specialist gear has to be used to dismount it etc from the wharf or tarmac. Hence the pref for manpack or Zero pack solutions is always better. Ideally if it needs power, then it can be driven off 12-24V DC. Also being autonomous is a plus. ny 2c worth

Quote Reply

lightningtest RE:Brit JIN ... 6/17/2005 6:09:31 AM

By end users I mean Infantry. As an aside - It seems to me to have taken a 100 years or so but I think that the significance (i.e. funding) of the supporting arms is being reduced back to reality? Thus I am thinking of ways to build tech simple/light enough to commonly travel with infantry on convoy duty (even if specialist personal are required to advise on it's operation when used in bomb disposal). Its just a thought but perhaps the same power supply modules required to provide electric armour may when joined up be used to zap IED's. It all depend on the current/voltage needed for each job (+ the inductance of the connections).

Quote Reply

lightningtest RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/17/2005 6:15:46 AM

whats a zero pack?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/17/2005 6:31:41 AM

"whats a zero pack?" It's a milspec rated container. www.zerocases.com basically a lot of the portable gear gets carted in cases like this.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:Brit JIN ... 6/17/2005 6:38:19 AM

"Its just a thought but perhaps the same power supply modules required to provide electric armour may when joined up be used to zap IED's. It all depend on the current/voltage needed for each job (+ the inductance of the connections). " to paraphrase cleopatra, "power is a pain in the asp" ;) The number of new technologies that are coming on board means that portable power is a huge issue. WRT to explosive management devices that means a few things. Portable power preferred If hard wired, then it means heavy shielding to reduce emissions It wireless control, then there will be a whole pile of restrictions in place, bandwidth, frequency issues, signal integrity, security (to stop signal hijacking etc...) all cables and connectors will need to be milspec and I imagine that in this case, there will be waterproofing provisions, overpressure provisions etc... Any system that uses existing portable power packs will probably be popular as it means that logistics isn't complicated. The UK is actually really tough at this kind of thing, so you'll get advice thats worth listening to.

Quote Reply

lightningtest RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/17/2005 7:04:09 AM

with 24V DC available a 5kA generator (typical 6.4/70 microsecond lightning pulse) could fit into one of the 2m x 1.0m x0.8m modular cases. link We would have to insulate things with oil which I think would mean a weight of ~100kg. How ever drain the oil and it may be 20kg lighter. If the next step up is a 20ft ISO shipping container then it is possible to provide upto 200kA for US$1.5million (yeh right! I hear you say already done by the JIN). However cost/rough handling requirements and low maintanance requirements mean such a 200kA generator would be unsuited for miltary use. Time will tell with the JIN. Joining many zero cases together would be very inefficent -but possible if the current can rise to peak over a longer time. I am still thinking of a couple of ~1.2m cube pallet sized loads that could be slid into the back ot a APC/IFV. Individually the weight of the pallets would be such 4 (Infantry) men could heave them. The insulated generator output could then be fed out along/through the tube most such vehicles already have installed. Mounting a UV laser head in the breach and shining it up the tube to the target. A interesting design problem which is to ensure the current flashes down to ground onto then IED rather than back up the barrel through the APC/IFV to the generator earth remains.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:Brit JIN ... a dumb idea? 6/17/2005 7:15:11 AM

I don't see why you need the UV laser. Tasers fire wires with little spikes on them that stick into the target. If the first few metres of the wires run up plastic pipes there should be no spark back to the genny.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - November 21, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us