Light Tanks

[Waylander]

Detecting emitters and jamm frequences is ok and is already done.
But many IEDs are hard wired like you see at the examples.
And they look like sand, a street stone, etc.

I cannot imagine how you want to counter this without hampering the troops too much in proceeding with its original tasks aka patrols, search missions, etc.

 

[FutureTank]

Detecting emitters and jamm frequences is ok and is already done.
But many IEDs are hard wired like you see at the examples.
And they look like sand, a street stone, etc.

I cannot imagine how you want to counter this without hampering the troops too much in proceeding with its original tasks aka patrols, search missions, etc.

Yes, I know its laready done...don't expect me to be original every time

I don't know how to do route clearance at the speed of a moving column that caters for every mine/IED possibility.

An airborne detector is my best idea because:
1. It is positioned well ahead of the column
2. It is able to maintain colum speed
3. It can be operated directly from within the column
4. It is not susseptable to the detonation effects by maintaining height
5. It is capable of providing intelligence over a relatively large area (so can identify munition and its operators)
6. It is relatively inexpensive, and tested technology
7. It can accomodate a variety of detection systems

However, because it would be required to fly over the expected munitions emplacement, it is vulnerable to fire from operators, which may require a team to operate the platform (detection operator and camera operator/s) to ensure it's survival, as well as the ability to provide suppression fire on any attempts to shoot the thing down from the control vehicle (hence the argument that it should retain a fairly able turreted weapon such as a Bushmaster).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, I know its laready done...don't expect me to be original every time

I don't know how to do route clearance at the speed of a moving column that caters for every mine/IED possibility.

An airborne detector is my best idea because:
1. It is positioned well ahead of the column
2. It is able to maintain colum speed
3. It can be operated directly from within the column
4. It is not susseptable to the detonation effects by maintaining height
5. It is capable of providing intelligence over a relatively large area (so can identify munition and its operators)
6. It is relatively inexpensive, and tested technology
7. It can accomodate a variety of detection systems

However, because it would be required to fly over the expected munitions emplacement, it is vulnerable to fire from operators, which may require a team to operate the platform (detection operator and camera operator/s) to ensure it's survival, as well as the ability to provide suppression fire on any attempts to shoot the thing down from the control vehicle (hence the argument that it should retain a fairly able turreted weapon such as a Bushmaster).

I can think of at least 4 countries working on aerial IED submission (as in to neutralise and make submissive) systems.

You can't traverse an urban area at convoy speed (and lets assume Oz doctrine, so 60kph min) - and detect and make passive an IED. You find another route.

The other alternative - which has had some success, is to improve anfd develop relationships with the village/tribal/clan elders. There are lots of instances where a new relationship has resulted in villagers/elders "giving up" IED locations.

You don't always have to punch someone in the nose to mess up their philtrum

 

[FutureTank]

I can think of at least 4 countries working on aerial IED submission (as in to neutralise and make submissive) systems.

You can't traverse an urban area at convoy speed (and lets assume Oz doctrine, so 60kph min) - and detect and make passive an IED. You find another route.

The other alternative - which has had some success, is to improve anfd develop relationships with the village/tribal/clan elders. There are lots of instances where a new relationship has resulted in villagers/elders "giving up" IED locations.

You don't always have to punch someone in the nose to mess up their philtrum

Yes, most definatelly!!!!:cheers

It seems to me the nature of the threat prevents a single solution in one platform. In the urban area, particularly in regions not known for emulating the Swiss in keeping their streets clean, detection of munitions would be difficult to handle (an understatement).

 

[Wooki]

These sniffers may work well at airport controls but I bet that building one which works in nature while driving with 50km/h on a full street full of dirt, dust, etc. is another challenge.
This is the main problem in my eyes.
You have to be able to do your normal work.
For sure you could search every meter before you with newest tech and manpower but than you would need hours for some hundred meters.

cheers

No, It is that easy, I sh!t you not. The protein detector works on light, so it is a simple matter of gauging the frequency of the light emitted through the helix to determine the amount of substance in your area and converting that into a digital readout that a computer can use... so you can be driving along at 100kmph with wind in your hair and this method will pick up the presence of a substance. We are talking millionths particle ratios here.

The problem lies in being able to detect viable threats, and not have it go off day in and day out. To do that you need to couple it with multiple protein strings from different substances that you could reasonably expect to find on a manufactured bomb (including the concrete) AND the SW coding that can make a good guesstimate. If you networked a UAV/blimp with a SAR unit with the protein/chemical sensor, you will have created an extremely powerful IED detection tool.

FYI, you won't find this machine in an airport. It is cutting edge tech.

cheers

w

 

[Waylander]

How far does it reaches? You need a good warning time when driving with normal patrol speed.

Your idea of using UAVs with this kind of sensor looks interesting.

If it works I would be glad because many lives could be saved.

And I've got another question.
Do you think it is possible to get the exact data of all the different IED types used?
I really have no idea of how many possible combinations we are talking about here.

 

[Wooki]

How far does it reaches? You need a good warning time when driving with normal patrol speed.

Your idea of using UAVs with this kind of sensor looks interesting.

If it works I would be glad because many lives could be saved.

And I've got another question.
Do you think it is possible to get the exact data of all the different IED types used?
I really have no idea of how many possible combinations we are talking about here.

A long way... too long in fact and like I said, that is the problem. But if you cross correlate the information with other detection sources, you are onto a winner.

Back to the cocaine example, if I took out 3 USD and paid the waiter a tip, it would set it off because of the cocaine particle on the dollar bills. That is pretty frakking sensitive.

driving at speed in a vehicle might actually be a good thing as it would "desensitize" the instrument.

I would like to see it used for syndromic survelliance, you know, in schools, so it could detect a virus strain, disease, etc and then send that to the CDC GIS database. Schools are a great way to litmus test the health of a community.

cheers

w

 

[FutureTank]

No, It is that easy, I sh!t you not. The protein detector works on light, so it is a simple matter of gauging the frequency of the light emitted through the helix to determine the amount of substance in your area and converting that into a digital readout that a computer can use... so you can be driving along at 100kmph with wind in your hair and this method will pick up the presence of a substance. We are talking millionths particle ratios here.

The problem lies in being able to detect viable threats, and not have it go off day in and day out. To do that you need to couple it with multiple protein strings from different substances that you could reasonably expect to find on a manufactured bomb (including the concrete) AND the SW coding that can make a good guesstimate. If you networked a UAV/blimp with a SAR unit with the protein/chemical sensor, you will have created an extremely powerful IED detection tool.
w

But this is like a giant vacuum cleaner, right?
How much processing power would be required to deal with the chemical spectrum analysis (for the operator) of the average Iraqi city street? It seems to me the data volume would be substantial :unknown

 

[Wooki]

But this is like a giant vacuum cleaner, right?
How much processing power would be required to deal with the chemical spectrum analysis (for the operator) of the average Iraqi city street? It seems to me the data volume would be substantial :unknown

No, and very little. perhaps as much cpu power as an old vic 20 or a calculator.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But this is like a giant vacuum cleaner, right?
How much processing power would be required to deal with the chemical spectrum analysis (for the operator) of the average Iraqi city street? It seems to me the data volume would be substantial :unknown

About 5 years ago I was tied up with a contract where the inventor had designed a modified xenon spotlight to assist in urban rescue.

this "light" had some tricky features to it:

LOS FM transmission
Revolving filter "turret" to act as a spectrum analyser
Dangerous gasses sniffer.

It used an inbuilt computer which was basically a risc chip on a logic board smaller than one of todays blackberries.

It also weighed about 1/5th of the normal light for equiv output.

So - no you don't need humongous computing capability.

All of the current tech is moving towards soldier portable packages. The Aust future soldier tech has reduced from mini notebooks to basically PDA's with even greater flexibility and more efficient processing capability

In actual fact the processing power is less than 5 years ago and doing the job far more efficiently.

 

[FutureTank]

It just seemed to me that of all the substances that can be encountered on a road, to select the correct sequence that would identify a weapon can't be all that easy, but obviously I'm wrong.

Has anyone read this book War X: Human Extensions in Battlespace (Digital Futures) by Tim Blackmore ?

Cheers

 

[FutureTank]

With .50s?
For what? Giving the tankers a good laugh before they throw a HE at them? .50s are not going to do any serious harm to MBT tracks.

These are not the regular .50s, but special anti-AFV sniper rifles with special ammunition.

 

[Waylander]

You mean like for the Barret?

And you want to go against tank tracks with a 12.7mm sniper rifle which has been introduced to go against soft structures like communication antennas, light vehicles, etc?

Our 12.7mm sniper do not train this and the reason is that against MBT tracks you just get the attention of the tank and nothing else.

 

[FutureTank]

You mean like for the Barret?

And you want to go against tank tracks with a 12.7mm sniper rifle which has been introduced to go against soft structures like communication antennas, light vehicles, etc?

Our 12.7mm sniper do not train this and the reason is that against MBT tracks you just get the attention of the tank and nothing else.

I don't know enough about the subject, but apparently it is possible to damage the tracks with such a weapon.
I'm a bit busy now to do the research, sorry.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't know enough about the subject, but apparently it is possible to damage the tracks with such a weapon.

Its also possible to blow up a tank with a mini nuke but......

seriously, a .50cal equiped sniper trying to slot a tank track from 2.5km is picking the hardest and least profit yielding impact point.

ever wondered why snipers don't shoot at tanks? look at Bosnia and the French for an answer. The same technology they have exists in the ADF - and I'd suggest that any modern military will have similar access to that capabilty.

It would be the dumbest and probably last thing that they could do, esp if the tank or AFV is part of a typically awake column

I'm a bit busy now to do the research, sorry.

Its usually safer to do the research before making public comment....

 

[rickshaw]

Shooting at the tank indeed, is not profitable. Shooting at the tank crew, well that pays off great dividends, particularly if they can bag the commander.

 

[Waylander]

At great range a target not bigger as a head (Not to talk of a moving head) is not really an easy target.
And if you don't hit (And if you hit) you have a problem with several big range TIs searching for you.
I would search for better targets as a sniper.

 

[eckherl]

At great range a target not bigger as a head (Not to talk of a moving head) is not really an easy target.
And if you don't hit (And if you hit) you have a problem with several big range TIs searching for you.
I would search for better targets as a sniper.

U.S snipers are trained to shoot at vehicle commanders and vehicle optics.

 

[rickshaw]

At great range a target not bigger as a head (Not to talk of a moving head) is not really an easy target.
And if you don't hit (And if you hit) you have a problem with several big range TIs searching for you.
I would search for better targets as a sniper.

They will have a hard time tracking a sniper (particularly one who doesn't repeat the attempt and moves on, as his SOPs should instruct him to). If the sniper hits, its a good return on the investment of a few dollars for the round fired.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They will have a hard time tracking a sniper (particularly one who doesn't repeat the attempt and moves on, as his SOPs should instruct him to). If the sniper hits, its a good return on the investment of a few dollars for the round fired.

Not necessarily. France, Australia, US and UK all have systems to deal with it.

Australian anti-sniping systems have been sold to US Treasury (think of which protection element is in US Treasury)

Slave it to a counter fire system and it doesn't matter how far they scoot.

The French used theirs in Bosnia. Australia is now working on a man portable version. The software is now PDA portable.

In tests we ran against multiple shooters we could have responded LOS with a slaved RCWS - in fact the new RCWS are ideal system partnerings for anti-sniper work. One of our foreign partners has slaved mortars to their software.

Accuracy is within a fraction of a metre, response is within milliseconds - and if you use mortars or electronically ranged heavy ballistics - then the CEP will kill anything with roll range.

Attach it to an IMV or scout car (like the french) and hand it off to an RCWS fitted vehicle. (As is currently used).

This tech is already in service.