Boffins invent grenade vaporising 'electric force field'

The Register (UK) ^ | 8.19.02 | John Leyden

[Pyro7480]

Where's the (ancestor of)Armoury Officer Lieutant Malcom Reed when you need him? ;-)

[spetznaz]

Boffins at Britain's Ministry of Defence have invented an electric 'force field' designed to protect armoured vehicles against anti-tank grenades.

Wow ....that is some interesting article. I wonder what promises it entails once the technology is developed to its highest level and applied to tanks (imagine a British Challenger MBT with chobham armor ,Explosive Reactive Armor packs as well as an internal 'force-field'). Smashing!

However while the Brits are developing this system for their future tanks, and the Russians are applying the Arena system for their tanks also (which uses radar to track incoming missiles and jams them at long ranges, and at short ranges launches mini missile charges to hit the oncoming Javelin or TOW missile before it impacts) our 'good' General Shinseki is trying to retire our Abrams tank force and replace them with future units composed of light wheeled vehicles! And some of the people who support him in his anti-tank stuff are personalities like Pierre Sprey (who used to be part of former Defense Sec. Robert McNamara's 'brain trust'-ha!) who says 'the Army would be better off updating the diesel-powered M-48 - the Army's 45-ton Pershing main battle tank produced in 1948. ! Interesting bed fellows.

And obviously such tank defense systems work since the article said the Pentagon is 'interested' in the British system (and in 2000 General Dynamics was in talks with Russia to purchase Arena systems to place in some of our M1A1s).

Anyways i digress! All i wanted to say was a whoa , a wow and a wowee. That was before i went off on a tangent and started ranting about Gen Shisenki (who seems to be a rather nice chap apart from the tnak thing).....sorry. I will in the future strive to be more succinct than i usually am. :D

[spitz]

Looks like General Shinseki doesn’t believe in a combination of mobility, firepower and protection, well at least the protection bit anyway. Just can’t see a LAV having the same psychological effect as 60+ ton MBT myself.

Hopefully the whole stupid idea will be ditched, 'cos it would be a shame to return to the days when it took 5 Shermans to knock out 1 Panther.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Looks like General Shinseki doesn’t believe in a combination of mobility, firepower and protection. . .<<

No need to . . .what, with the entire Army wearing black berets and strutting around as an "Army of One," who needs armor as self-esteem will win our next war. . . right. . . ?

[RightOnline]

"Maybe that spider web material produced in the milk of those genetically modified goats."

LOL.........what the hell????? :)

Or.......maybe that faux angel hair pasta-like material from the inner bowels of the rare New Zealand mugwamp. It's a bitch to get, but tough as nails............

[Capriole]

Question 1: What's a Boffin? Are they related to Muggles? Does one find many of them at Hogwarts? Honestly, this sounds like a word straight out of Harry Potter.

[MadIvan]

A boffin is sort of like a nerd, but less demeaning. It does imply someone who uses their brain for their work rather than their hands, only more so.

Boffins can include scientists, programmers, engineers...and yes web site designers. ;)

Regards, Ivan

[spitz]

In truth, the good General isn’t proposing anything new. Following WW2, tank designers tried to reduce the weight of MBT’s, and despite their efforts the weight of any serious tank is 60 tons plus. Wheeled anti-tank guns have almost completely disappeared and tracked tank destroyers appear from time to time on a whim.

The tanks future has been questioned every now and then, but if the other guys got one, the best way to kill it is to have a better one. Self-esteems fine, but for protection 6” of steel is better.

[g'nad]

David Drake had the answer

Hammer's Slammers Rule!!!...in books anyway...

[decimon]

Okay, so when I start my car a relay kicks in and charges some capacitors. Anything in my way gets vaporized. Can't wait until Whitney carries it.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Self-esteems fine, but for protection 6” of steel is better.<<

I imagine you feel pretty good about yourself when encased in a 60-ton tank.
;-)

[robertpaulsen]

"Or mix-in a dielectric like lithium sulphate?"

Naw, go straight to dilithium.

[DK Zimmerman]

On Shinseki - Folks, the "Transformation" isn't so much his idea, but that of politicians. Bottom line is, heavy forces (mech/armored) take a lot of money to procure, maintain, and deliver to remote theaters. The powers that be have decided, "too much." Time is suggested to be a consideration, but the truth is, pols don't want to pay for the fleets (air and naval) necessary to move faster.

Their solution is AF/Navy centric "precision" bombing and lighter ground forces. Never mind that in Desert Shield the Battle Damage Assessments (BDAs) were inflated some 1000% (we only hit 10% of what we thought we had) and that Kosovo only ended because the enemy had completed its mission and withdrew (only losing some 100 vehicles total - only 26 or so tanks, to the air campaign). They don't want to pay the cost of heavy forces.

Consequently, GEN Shinseki was directed to transform the Army. He hasn't done it fast enough, so SecDef Rumsfeld effectively fired him. Armored vehicles have historically been a trade off amongst, factors such as speed, mobility, lethality, and survivability.

Armor is a trade off between weight, bulk, and the need to defeat both kinetic and potential energy rounds. Kinetic rounds use momentum and mass to defeat armor, poking a hole in it, so to speak. American kinetic rounds are currently made of depleted uranium shaped long and thin and move very fast.

Potential or chemical energy weapons are what this device will help with. They do not rely on speed, but on an explosive warhead, to burn through armor. Think of them as tin cans. Knock the bottom out and put a funnel in, wide part down. Now fill the can with explosive. When the explosive is properly detonated, the funnel shape creates a jet. If the funnel is made of metal, the jet includes molten metal, not quite, but fairly close to plasma (I'm not going to try and explain the physics of that).

"Stand off" is required to get the jet to form sufficiently to cut through the armor it is hurtling towards, especially for a tank main gun round, less so for an RPG type munition, but still necessary. Reportedly, an American 105mm HEAT round achieved peak efficiency at some 16 feet from the munition. Given that the HEAT fuse was only some 10 inches in advance of the round and the round moves fairly fast, obviously a great deal of efficiency did not have to be realized, with metal "funnels."

What defeats kinetic rounds, doesn't defeat HEAT rounds, and vice versa. Sloped, homogenous rolled steel is best against kinetic while HEAT goes right through it. Something to interrupt the jet, frangible material, can beat the jet, but kinetic rounds go through that like tissue paper. Abrams and Bradley armor is currently "spaced." There is actually a porcelain type outer layer, followed by a space filled with material to disperse the jet, followed by steel.

So for starters, this invention is only half the answer, and not really the "weight" half. Then, simply removing the copper or other metal funnel would appear to defeat this invention entirely, producing a pure explosive jet. Increasing stand off would probably be more than sufficient to maintain lethality. This can be done by proximity fusing or simple distance/time of flight timers.

In short, while this sounds really neat, it doesn't answer any of the Transformation issues. The US is about to relegate all of its heavy armor to the junk pile. The only
"good" side to it is the requisite isolationism that result. It won't take long for Iraq, North Korea, or China long to blow us off the battlefield without heavy armor. Thus, we will be forced into isolationism.

The Abrams tank is already as old as the M60 was when it was replaced, and that was long overdue. Add 15-30 years (how long Transformation is scheduled to take and NO armored tracks are scheduled to be procured). And it will take 5-10 years to rebuild a true armored force, when we lose all our wheeled play-tanks and troops to artillery and real tanks.

[Gunrunner2]

No question about it, we need heavy armor.
All thinking people realize this.

We need a full spectrum of capabilities to cover land, sea, cyber, air and space.

As far as Desert Storm is concerned, you are misreading the numbers. The GWAPS (Gulf War Air Power Studies) find that 1,000% figure a bit much. Over 85% of PGM’s hit within 15’ of their aim point, and from WWII, when it took over 9,000 bombs to achieve a Pk of 90% on a 60’ x 90’ target, in the Gulf War it took 30 unguided bombs from an F-16 or one PGM from an F-117.

The strength of Air Power is strategic effect, not attrition. . .that would be more in line with an Army role. So the question is, really, did Air Power “kill” the Iraqi’s military? Yes, in effect, it did.

The aim of the strategic air campaign was to attack a nations ability to field an army, command it, sustain it, and make it fight effectively. In that regard the air war was a spectacular success. Iraq was paralyzed, blind and starved, and had no idea what the heck was going on. This allowed the land forces to succeed with relative ease (that and an excellent operational plan).

The ability of air power to render a land army essentially ineffective made the Gulf War the first war where Air Power was the primary fire and an army was supporting. Now, before you get your ruck in a twist, I am not saying this will be the case in every war, Lord knows that is not the case. What I am saying is Air Power technology, doctrine and targeting has now evolved where Air Power no longer is a supporting fire in every conflict, it is now on parity with all other forces.

In the Gulf War there was basically several types of BDA. For the USAF BDA was measured in relation to a targets ability to function. Was it “dead?” Was it “injured?” Could it still “fight?” Was it unharmed?” A few inside the Beltway types had other standards to measure BDA.

For instance, when a Maverick missile hits a tank, it is toast, no question about it. However, the Beltway boys decided that if the turret was not physically off the tank, it wasn’t “dead.” Go figure.

In addition, if a radar van or a command and control facility was hit and looked like Swiss-cheese, it was dead, but the Belt-way boys said no, as long has it was standing it wasn’t dead. Hardly a fair assessment, indeed.

[DK Zimmerman]

I concur completely with your opening. The Transformation should be an Addition. At a minimum, in lieu of giving up on tanks, we should continue what we have (and upgrading/replacing as needed) and add light forces, or dual train existing light forces to work with the new stuff. Unfortunately, Congress and the folks running the Pentagon don't see it that way.

I'm a charter member of the "armor mafia," I guess. Rumsfeld and his smart guys apparently don't qualify as "thinking people."

Reference the other (you have mail!), I'll grant you aim points. The problem is what they were aiming at wasn't what they were hunting for, in many instances.

[PsyOp]

This will be a big help for lightly armored vehicles.

[spetznaz]

Yeah, it would indeed be a huge boon to lightly armored vehicles to have this component system installed.

However i would rather be in an M1A2 Abrams with 'normal' chobham armor and ERA packs than to be in the next generation Bugee with an electrical grid and a prayer.

Yep ....i know some might say i am being 'stagnant' when it comes to accepting new ideas (and some references to those around the Great War who said tanks would never replace horses might also pop up), however i still stick to my premise: In a hostile situation i would rather be in an Abrams MBT rather than huddled in a Hummer juiced up with AC.

However i concur that if the system is developed it would be very beneficial to the light vehicles coming up (unless the opposing army decides to not use Shaped warheads and opts for a simple M-60 type weapon and spray slugs at the 'super-hummer' from all directions. After all, why waste a perfectly good Shaped charge ....missiles can at times get expensive. However 50 cal rounds are cheaper).

[Justa]