PDA

View Full Version : UK Bans Dumb Cluster Bombs


ORAC
20th Mar 2007, 21:37
BBC: Britain bans 'dumb' cluster bombs

The UK is to stop using cluster bombs that lack self-destruct mechanisms to reduce the risk of civilian casualties, Defence Secretary Des Browne has said. The weapons, known as "dumb" cluster bombs, will be withdrawn immediately and destroyed, said Mr Browne. He said the move meant the UK was the first world power to abandon their use...........

In February, at a conference in Norway, the UK, which has used cluster bombs in Kosovo and Iraq, joined 45 other nations in pledging to ban cluster bombs by 2008. The US has rejected a ban.

In a written statement to MPs, Mr Browne said: "It is our duty to make sure our forces have the equipment they need to do the job we ask of them. At the same time, we should strive to reduce civilian casualties to the minimum. Military commanders are first to point out that modern conflicts are, in large part, about winning hearts and minds. This is an important decision. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do. We hope that other countries will now follow suit."

The MoD said the UK would immediately stop using the RBL 755 aerial-delivered cluster munition and the Multi Launch Rocket System M26 munition. More than 28 million sub-munitions will be destroyed, said the MoD.

Simon Conway, of the Cluster Munition Coalition, said the UK must ban all cluster bombs. "Smart means precision guided and the cluster munitions that the UK wants to retain are not precision guided. "As long as the UK retains them, the unacceptable threat to civilians will remain."

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: "All cluster munitions are indiscriminate and there are serious concerns that even so-called smart munitions have a significant failure rate, making them a dangerous remnant of conflict."

mojocvh
20th Mar 2007, 21:45
When they say 28 million submunitions will be destroyed does that mean then all?

Why can't they just say no more will be produced and well just use the stock up?

Total waste of money in the face of PC AGAIN.

Load Toad
21st Mar 2007, 02:58
Well unless it's your kid that gets it's feet blown off of course.

Prop-Ed
21st Mar 2007, 04:05
I am looking forward to hearing the Taliban’s response to this new policy. Will they follow suit and also pledge to protect civilians during their military campaigns?
Of course I agree that civilians need protection but without the USA on board, our gesture is but a drop in the ocean.

Ali Barber
21st Mar 2007, 05:28
Don't have any idea how many we have, but they must contribute to the overall war stocks and, presumably, will need replacing with something else, whether it be PGM or dumb. Any bets on the budget announcing an increase in defence spending as a result of this unilateral humanitarian gesture? No, didn't think so!

Saintsman
21st Mar 2007, 07:43
28 million? Someones going to have fun disposing of them.

Mead Pusher
21st Mar 2007, 09:03
Umm, so - with no gun on the Typhoon and no dumb weapons of any other kind... what are we supposed to use on the insurgents of the future (I'm thinking Afghanistan type ops)?

Harsh language?

toddbabe
21st Mar 2007, 09:14
the bit that made me laugh was des brown thinking we are a world power!!!:}

DSAA
21st Mar 2007, 10:32
This might be way out of left field, but I thought it was accepted the Typhoon does have a gun now...

Maple 01
21st Mar 2007, 12:08
Yes, but no rounds unless they ask nicely is my understanding

Load Toad
21st Mar 2007, 12:13
I am looking forward to hearing the Taliban’s response to this new policy. Will they follow suit and also pledge to protect civilians during their military campaigns?

I don't think being as bad as the terrorists helps with the ultimate aim of stopping terrorist activities. What do you think?

Barn Doors
21st Mar 2007, 12:30
Well lets just replace them with bomblets that do self destruct

Zoom
21st Mar 2007, 12:37
Since even basic digital cameras now have a (sort of) facial recognition mode, why not add the technology to the bomblets so that they explode only when they identify someone we don't like. And no, they don't all look the same.

Load Toad
21st Mar 2007, 12:51
I've got a picture of The Strife here - who do I address it to?

M609
21st Mar 2007, 13:54
Anyone that has actually spent any time in a country plagued with UXOs from CBUs or artillery or whatever (or indeed anti personell mines as well) can only be for a ban like this.

I've had the 'pleasure' of giving first aid to a kid that stepped on an UXO, it puts things into perspective. That was 5 years after the war was over and CNN left. :oh:

I don's see the yanks joining this initiative though. :ugh:

Prop-Ed
21st Mar 2007, 20:57
Load toad,

Sorry the irony was wasted on you.

LateArmLive
21st Mar 2007, 22:36
Don't worry too mucg people, we haven't had the ROE to drop CBUs since Kosovo (I think) so no capability lost. We stopped training with them years ago.
Mead Pusher

We have PLENTY of dumb bombs left in stock and use them quite often.

Phil_R
21st Mar 2007, 22:47
> We have PLENTY of dumb bombs left in stock and use them quite often.

Can't they be used as the basis for Paveway? I understood it was a bolt-on kit.

Phil

Pontius Navigator
21st Mar 2007, 22:59
Phil, indeed they can. Not only that, so can the Inert rounds. Half a ton of bomb hitting a tank, even a 50 ton tank, at 500 kts will more than scratch the paint!

Squirrel 41
22nd Mar 2007, 11:39
<<International Law Rant Mode: ON>> :cool:

As I understand it, the ban is for RBL-755 becuase the bomblets themselves do not self-destruct after a period; meaning that they can kill non-combatants and pose a risk for years to come. If this means that we will retrofit them with a self-destruct mechanism to reduce the post-conflict risk, then this must be a good thing, IMHO.

It's also clear that the laws of armed conflict - and the recent improvements in the implementation and enforcement of them - is making it much more diffcult to use CBUs and submunitions of any sort much more difficult - the challenge, as ever, is to discriminate between combatants and civilians and not to inflict disproportionate damage.

However, I do not believe that banning CBUs outright is per se a good idea - there are some types of target (e.g. vehicle compounds) where the use of CBUs as area weapons is both proportionate and discriminating - and where failing to use area weapons would mean many more discrete targets and many more missions required to successfully prosecute them, with concommitant increased risk to civilians and aircrew alike. :sad:

The real challange is getting the users of CBUs to use them within the law - and it is the ILLEGAL MISUSE - indeed, CRIMINAL ILLEGAL MISUSE[/B] of CBUs by some states (e.g. Israel in Lebanon, summer 2006) := that makes it much more difficult for the political argument to be made to retain these useful, if not wholly unproblematic, weapons.

<<International Law Rant Mode: OFF>>

S41

zotbox
22nd Mar 2007, 11:41
The 2003 BBC Documentary series "Fighting the War" had an episode dedicated to the Tornado GR4 wing during TELIC (The episode was called "Friendly Fire")

The program commented on the use of cluster munitions (BL755) and the OC of the Unit was seen on camera talking about their use. (not very enthusiatically either, if I recall correctly)

TEEEJ
22nd Mar 2007, 11:46
Don't worry too mucg people, we haven't had the ROE to drop CBUs since Kosovo (I think) so no capability lost.

CBUs were dropped during Telic.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031023/text/31023w07.htm

There was a documentary aired after the conflict showing cockpit footage of a BL755 drop. Had interviews with the GR.4 crew before and after the drop.

Wader2
22nd Mar 2007, 12:01
The plan to use of area denial weapons, in the face of an advancing enemy, was probably a necessary cold war tactic. What the Russian exit from Afghanistan, and the coalition occupation of Iraq has created is not just an unintended hazard to non-combattants but is an issue for own forces too.

Apart from the direct anti-personnel hazards ther is the possibility that these weapons can be harvestedby insurgents and targetted against the occupying troops.

These anti-personnel weapons are not the only hazard to occupying forces, the number of dud munitions creates a further hazard and unwelcome supply to insurgents. IIRC, in Vietnam the VC used both unexploded and captured 105mm shells to bombard US forces. They didn't use them in guns either.

pba_target
22nd Mar 2007, 14:04
Suspect this stems from a string of questions that the AFPS MPs were asking on the RAFs policy wrt the use of cluster bombs about 9 months to a year ago. A string of emails later revealed that there was, in fact, no policy other than to use them if they were the most effective weapon to take out the target. However it was noted that they were due to be fully replaced by 2010 (? I believe, though the grey cells are fading proportionatly to the amount of grey hair...). The replacement was slated to be brimstone, as it was deemed that it could be carried in large enough numbers to be effective against large numbers of vehicles (soft skinned or armoured).

Not entirely convinced that it could replace all the roles of CBU, but it's a bit more PC in this day and age...

UnderPowered
22nd Mar 2007, 14:24
Wader. You can't pick these things up and use them, because they go off when you do.
General points:
They are not area denial weapons in the same way that the German MW-1 or HB876 was. They are anti-armour weapons.
Also, the use of these things is not illegal - they are not mines because they are not designed to be 'victim initiated'. Technically, they are no less discriminate that the fragmantation you get from a GP bomb - that goes wherever it wants within its own ballistic capability.
I'd love to see their continued use, with a mod so that they self desctuct or dud safe or something, but that's alot of work/money.

PBA - you're right, you can use a CBU for alot more things than you can a Brimstone.

Wader2
22nd Mar 2007, 14:51
Wader. You can't pick these things up and use them, because they go off when you do.

I am uncertain of that point but the bomblet is initated by the deformation of the impact sensor and an electrical pulse from the piezo crystal. If there is no impact it should then be inert.

General points:
They are not area denial weapons in the same way that the German MW-1 or HB876 was. They are anti-armour weapons. - they are not mines because they are not designed to be 'victim initiated'.

Exactly. It is not victim initiated therefore one might assume it is inert if it failed to detonate on first impact. It may still function in its static state if the impact sensor is struck and the piezo crystal is excited. If handled with care it may possibly be recovered by the insurgents.

UnderPowered
22nd Mar 2007, 15:34
Can't expand on the piezo crystal on this forum. Sorry.

Sunray Minor
22nd Mar 2007, 16:16
M609,

Agreed. I've had the misfortune of experiencing the same in Laos.

40 years after cluster bombs were used there they are still maiming kids and farmers on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis - and that is in a country of just 6 million people.

Regardless of their potential benefit to any military invasion, the after effects are as bad as the chemical weapons we so decry. Those on the receiving end for decades after are faceless civilians.

Double Zero
22nd Mar 2007, 18:54
In the time I spent at the West Freugh test range, two skilled bomb-disposal experts were killed by BL 755 bomblets; so expertise doesn't help, and impact certainly doesn't necessarily set them off.

Remember the Tornado's JP233 was ditched a while ago, supposedly for PC reasons, but in fact it was a useless weapon with no runway penetration and it only took some half-brained AAA to bring down the delivery aircraft !

Re. the Taliban, I agree with the previous mailer that we should use up our stocks on them ( I notice the Matra155's must have gone, as the Harriers are now using CRV's ), and wherever possible fit Paveway kits to iron bombs - I'm not a FJ pilot but an ex- BAe technical & FJ photographer - if anyone feels I'm pontificating from a comfy chair, I'd be happy to join in if someone can organise it, all images pro FAA / RAF.

Some previous efforts at www.harrier.org.uk/ (http://www.harrier.org.uk/) history - scrolldown to 'harrier testing' if suffering insonia.


Andy

Pontius Navigator
22nd Mar 2007, 19:15
Double Zero thank you. In the time I spent at the West Freugh test range, two skilled bomb-disposal experts were killed by BL 755 bomblets; so expertise doesn't help, and impact certainly doesn't necessarily set them off.

In fact the failure rate is somewhere about 5-6 per unit (use Google). That your BD exerts were killed is tragic but I wonder how they were killed.

Feel free to join in, you were one of the 'backroom boys' they didn't all have to wear a uniform.

soddim
22nd Mar 2007, 23:38
The problem with some cluster munitions is that the electrical initiation of the explosive chain can be induced simply by static electricity from synthetic clothing. Put simply, it is extremely dangerous to go anywhere near them - so how do you clear them? A 5% dud rate is quite normal so expect to find a lot of UXBs from every weapon.

Sunray Minor
23rd Mar 2007, 14:08
Re. the Taliban, I agree with the previous mailer that we should use up our stocks on them

That was probably tongue-in-cheek, but I have to say this is exactly our problem. The average Taliban "squaddie" isn't much different from a civilian or even our allies, depending on the time of day and which direction the wind blows. Take out the head honcho's and the real nasties, but plenty of Afghans support the Taliban (and are hence Taliban themselves) simply because they are the only ones putting food on their plate.

Cluster bombs with such a high failure rate and bombies that are scattered by seasonal rains and agriculture are no friend of ours as they simply screw with these very same civilians and help drive them in to the enemies hands.