protecting against ieds
Discussion
surely we can come up with a better design of vehicle / system with the brains on pistonhead that would protect people from ieds? have the deaths so far been just landrovers - do those new vehicles protect them? do they have slanting sides / new armour etc. is there a system to scan the ground ahead that could pick up explosives etc? thoughts / ideas?
theaxe said:
I think some of the best protection comes from radio jammers which stop the firing signal being received.
that works well if the device is radio controlled, no impact at all if a contact fuse or command wire detonated device.You need to know the method of attack to work out the best defence against it. With military vehicles you always have a combination of design factors to account for. Defense/survivability is one, the others firepower, manouverability and range. Plus the one that the civil servants are most bothered about, cost.
The problem over in the stan as i understand it is that the tailban are now connecting a small device to trigger a couple of 155mm shells or even old soviet aircraft munitions. There is next to nothing that will save you from that kind of detonation if you're close.
Saxons are pretty good when hit by an IED/Landmine if I remember rightly the wheels are designed to blow off to dissipate the force of the explosion, V shaped body to force the blast up and out as well. Lots of the South African vehicles are designed that way too.
The big problem is that the Saxon is a big lumbering top heavy beastie that was perfect in Northern Ireland and Germany when used as a battle taxi to get the troops to the front lines, but not much use in Afghanistan. Armoured against shell splinters and 7.62mm not much use against RPGs. Used to love seeing them cruising about town when I was wee, seriously mean looking bits of kit.
However well armoured the vehicle is , it is so much easier just to build a bigger bomb, 4 or 5 155mm shells will make a mess out of anything that rolls over the top of it.
Those in the RUC were always told back home to start the car with no seatbelt on and the doors open so as to hopefully be blown free of the car and teh worst of the explosion in case an IRA undercar bomb went off. (Back in the days when they were called bombs not IEDs)
Maybe that is part of the reason the Landies are used? Hopefully allowing the blast to dissapate around you rather than be stuck in a metal box on top of the blast.
Im not too sure on this but because of the medical care now available, there are a lot more serious injuries such as loss of multiple limbs and brain damage, whereas even a few years ago those injuries would have been fatalities. IMO finding ways to further prevent limb loss and brain damage being as severe and providing adequate care is the most important thing.
Edited by Mr Dave on Saturday 11th July 16:28
There was a very revealing article in last weekend's Times (can't remember if it was Saturday or Sunday).
It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
Taita said:
There are a few blokes serving who post here, I would wait to hear from the 'horses mouth'.
The Mastiff is quite well thought of IIRC, and the Jackal whilst lightly armoured and exposed, is quite quick.
hmm thats interesting if you go quick enough would you avoid the blast? how fast would you have to go? r they all detonated remotely or are they like mines where you run over them and they explode?The Mastiff is quite well thought of IIRC, and the Jackal whilst lightly armoured and exposed, is quite quick.
Considering its a fairly big threat I'm surprised the army don't employ stuff like the old mine sweeping tanks at the head of a convoy. Sure they aren't fast but at least you would all get to your destination in one piece.
This sort of thing...
The old lightly armoured Land Rovers clearly offer no real protection, I imagine they only still use them because of financial constraints. If we want this war won, then unfortunately HMG have to commit more of our money to it and spend that cash on decent equipment.
This sort of thing...
The old lightly armoured Land Rovers clearly offer no real protection, I imagine they only still use them because of financial constraints. If we want this war won, then unfortunately HMG have to commit more of our money to it and spend that cash on decent equipment.
can you get exploding skin on the vehicles like some tanks where when they are hit it triggers an explosion in the other direction using up the blast energy. or am i talking crap
what about some sort of high tech goo that would absob the explosion. what is it that actually kills - the force of the blast or heat etc?
what about some sort of high tech goo that would absob the explosion. what is it that actually kills - the force of the blast or heat etc?
V8mate said:
There was a very revealing article in last weekend's Times (can't remember if it was Saturday or Sunday).
It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
Do you have some source info on this? I'd like to have a read...It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
You'd have thought spending a few million on licensing the american vehicles and building them in the UK would be the best solution...
interloper said:
Considering its a fairly big threat I'm surprised the army don't employ stuff like the old mine sweeping tanks at the head of a convoy. Sure they aren't fast but at least you would all get to your destination in one piece.
This sort of thing...
The old lightly armoured Land Rovers clearly offer no real protection, I imagine they only still use them because of financial constraints. If we want this war won, then unfortunately HMG have to commit more of our money to it and spend that cash on decent equipment.
Because that was designed to deal with a much smaller threat than exists nowadays. Have you seen the size of device that is being used?This sort of thing...
The old lightly armoured Land Rovers clearly offer no real protection, I imagine they only still use them because of financial constraints. If we want this war won, then unfortunately HMG have to commit more of our money to it and spend that cash on decent equipment.
I suggest you go on youtube and have a look at a few detonations against our forces.
t 
how about a vehicle so light with special sides that makes it shoot up in the air when a blast goes off in the same way a rocket goes up.
replace vehicles with motorbikes theyd be quicker and so avoid them easier?
special goggles that link to infra red drone that scans ahead?
do hovercraft set of mine type devices?
some sort of portable electronic forcefield to stop them being detonated?
jet packs?
more helicopters?
some sort of device that nulls the explosion by applying an immediate inverse force?
brain storm chaps come on!
replace vehicles with motorbikes theyd be quicker and so avoid them easier?
special goggles that link to infra red drone that scans ahead?
do hovercraft set of mine type devices?
some sort of portable electronic forcefield to stop them being detonated?
jet packs?
more helicopters?
some sort of device that nulls the explosion by applying an immediate inverse force?
brain storm chaps come on!
V8mate said:
There was a very revealing article in last weekend's Times (can't remember if it was Saturday or Sunday).
It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
A slightly unfair summary I feel. I used to work for large defence contractor and without exception the MoD was the worst customer I have ever had - that is army/navy/raf people making it harder to support army/navy/raf front line personnel. They really are their own worst enemy. I'm not going to go into details, but I can well understand why a DC would charge the MoD twice what they would DoD. It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
The other key difference will be that whereas we'll order 1000 units and then later cancel 25% of the order due to defence cuts, the US will buy 100,000 units creating economies of scale.
davido140 said:
V8mate said:
There was a very revealing article in last weekend's Times (can't remember if it was Saturday or Sunday).
It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
Do you have some source info on this? I'd like to have a read...It showed our best troop carrying vehicle, detailing how the IEDs knock it out so easily and giving the price - £750k per vehicle.
It then told the same story from the American perspective. They had turned up with their Hummers, found them to be utterly inappropriate for the type of warfare and then gone straight out ino the defence market asking for a new vehicle. A design was offered which, amongst many other features, offers specific external deflection from roadside bombs - a 'V'-shaped undercarriage - and which protects the occupants through smart harnesses (to stop them being thrown about when a blast hits. The new vehicle, 10 tonnes to our 3 tonnes IIRC, was then procured and the first units are already seeing service in Afghanistan. Cost? £350k per vehicle.
That is smart warfare. Having a government standing right behind its troops, responding quickly to the demands of local commanders and seeking market-led solutions which are as a competitive on the public purse as they are in the battlefield.
What do we have? Some lame Defence Minister who, from the safety of Westminster, declared this week that more of our service personnel will have to die before the job is done. What an idiot.
Why is our public sector, irrelevant of the party in government, so incapable of conducting timely, proper and effective procurement for anything at all?
You'd have thought spending a few million on licensing the american vehicles and building them in the UK would be the best solution...
To improve the data I gave, it compared the UK's Viking BVS10 (10 tonnes) with the US's new Cougar 66X (23 tonnes), priced respectively at £700k and £394k.
The key improvements of the Cougar are a hull which deflects blasts, five-point harnesses to stop back/neck injuries to personnel when hit by a blast and a significantly improved and protected position for the roof gunner.
The US has managed to deliver 12,000 new combat vehicles in the last two years; the UK has delivered 235.
The US Under-Secretary for Defence procurement says that he always had money at his disposal to ensure that the MRAP programme delivered successfully (MRAP - mine-resistant, ambush-protected)
The UK response to the poorly armoured 'snatch' Land Rovers was the Mastiff. They were supposed to have delivered 174 by now, but only 127 have turned up.
Contractors to US defence procurement clearly allocate such orders a considerably higher level of importance!
interloper said:
Considering its a fairly big threat I'm surprised the army don't employ stuff like the old mine sweeping tanks at the head of a convoy. Sure they aren't fast but at least you would all get to your destination in one piece.
They do. The equipment ranges from sophisticated electronic jammers on lead vehicles to a soldier with a metal detector walking ahead. Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff