I.E.D's A solution ? [Archive]

BEagle

5th Feb 2010, 08:57

Good programme on ITV last night 'Road Warriors' - a fly-on-the-wall documentary about the hazards of land convoy work in Afghanistan. IEDs were stated to be the primary threat and anything which can reduce that would be very welcome.

However, flail tanks are very slow - about 1.5 mph - and only effective against contact-detonated mines. No use against buried IEDs triggered remotely or against roadside booby-traps. In a built up area they would be lethal to their crews due to their extreme vulnerability.

ninja-lewis

5th Feb 2010, 11:44

How long before the Taliban work out that all they need to do is move the explosives six feet or whatever in front of the trigger? Probably only a matter of a few failed IEDs and hours?

Plus by the end of the Second World War, the simple counter for flail tanks was to plant the odd large sea mine/air-dropped bomb in a minefield. Sherman crab proceeds to drive across the normal AT mines then suddenly sets off the surprise.

NutLoose

5th Feb 2010, 11:55

I often wondered as a lot of the explosives used are "cooked" from Fertiliser, why, as they did in Ireland during the troubles, do they simply not make fertilisers with a high nitrate content illegal? there by reducing amount of potential explosive available.

I realise it would be difficult to control, but when stocks of the then illegal fertilisers were discovered they could be destroyed, thus removing a potential bomb making source, Heck you could even supply the safer variant at a cheaper price to the Afghanistanis or replace their discovered stocks with the safer versions........ I would imagine it would be cheaper to give the stuff away than replace some of the vehicles lost, let alone the sad loss of life.

Just a thought.

T-21

5th Feb 2010, 13:08

Thanks for the input ,anything to stop our soldier/airmen getting maimed or killed. Do the MoD have brain-storming sessions like these ? An anti-IED suggestion box at the front-line might be a good idea.

navibrator

5th Feb 2010, 13:20

What about soldiers walking on a type of snow shoe that spreads the pressure for any pressure type IEDs?

onetrack

5th Feb 2010, 13:22

Most IED's are triggered remotely, and mobile (cell/sat) phones are a favorite ignition tool. IED's can be hidden out of reach of flails. Mines have a vast array of ignition mechanisms, not just pressure-sensitive methods. There are magnetic mines, time-delay mines, mines that need circuits to be connected by the likes of sappers searching bayonets.
There's one highly satisfactory way to eliminate IED's - and that's to promptly and regularly eliminate from this world, those who plan, design, build and detonate them.
Then there are the "entrapment" mines or IED's. The nasty buggers set off one charge to create some damage - and as soon as more people arrive to help, they set off other hidden charges. There are often mines hidden under mines, set to trap those who defuse the top mine, and as soon as the top mine is lifted, the bottom mine, or IED, is activated. There is no end to the methods of evil. I can regale you for an hour on the inventiveness of the SE Asians when it comes to IED's - the perfectors of IED's. The current crop of terrorists have only learnt from the NVA and VC - but they have more technological tools at their disposal.
Highly sensitive explosive sniffers will likely be the tool of the future.
Super-sensitive explosive detector developed - tech - 13 April 2005 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7264-supersensitive-explosive-detector-developed.html)

racedo

5th Feb 2010, 13:36

The development of a hovercraft type vehicle would make most IED's pretty much useless against vehicles. Also a group mapping scan system that scanned downwards to show what was in the ground ahead would also improve matters.

The technology is there but is pretty slow at this present moment in time for use by vehicles but has been available for military satellites for many a year.

Guess its a combination of a metal detector type implement, amonia sniffer, combined with ground mapping radar combined with a very fast microprocessor to take account of vehicle movement and stability. Combine the elements from all 4 from a number of different companies and pretty much you would have a working model within a year or less. Course could build it into a remote vehicle driven in front of a convoy like a UAV controlled from elsewhere, a fleet of theses doing a hop further along the route and you have convoy protection. Its doable but question is whether the will is there.

RotaryWingB2

5th Feb 2010, 13:48

Lots of the current IED's have been 5ft up built into walls etc.

Captain Kirk

5th Feb 2010, 13:53

L J R

5th Feb 2010, 14:10

Please don't or discuss mention what WE know about them - even if in open source etc.......every hint of our knowledge is a hint to change by the Fu***ers that lay these things.

SASless

5th Feb 2010, 14:13

One tactic that worked well in RVN.....was to use the tactic against the enemy. One battalion aggressively engaged in a "mechanical ambush" campaign in their area of the jungle which contained numerous NVA/VC units.

When they pulled out....the area reeked of success and they had taken no causualties themselves. Fight fire with fire when the circumstances provide the opportunity. Deny the roads to the Taliban then move to the trails....make it very dangerous for them to be moving....box them up....then run the B-52's in on them using JDAMS. Forget this patroling and being the target only.

Airborne Aircrew

5th Feb 2010, 14:14

As has been pointed out, IED's are not simply mines in the traditional sense. They are, in fact, quite cleverly conceived devices of death. There is no "silver bullet" for their location because their composition, placement and triggering are, ultimately, dependent entirely upon the imagination of human beings.

The suggestion that there can be a foolproof method for their detection is one that, really, only a fool can make. Taking into account the number of different, commonly available, compounds that can be used to create an explosive mix multiplied by the number of compounds that could be used to mask said compounds multiplied by the number of ways the explosive could be used at greater range to effect damage, (claymore, shaped charges, larger explosions), multiplied by the number of ways they can be initiated one quickly realizes that the combination's are myriad and, therefore, reliable detection becomes proportionately less likely and rapidly approaches impossible unless you restrict the detection device to only a small subset of the whole thus defeating the premise of a universal detection solution.

There is no viable solution to the problem of IED's with our current level of technology, (nor in the forseeable future), other than not deploying foot soldiers and vehicles into areas where they might be encountered. Clearly, that is not an option.

Double Zero

5th Feb 2010, 14:57

"The development of a hovercraft type vehicle would make most IED's pretty much useless against vehicles. Also a group mapping scan system that scanned downwards to show what was in the ground ahead would also improve matters.

The technology is there but is pretty slow at this present moment in time for use by vehicles but has been available for military satellites for many a year."

--------------

Racedo,

A, a hovercraft has to put pressure on the ground to support it's weight, albeit dispersed better than on wheels,

B, It's a hell of a hovercraft, even beyond Thunderbirds, if it can be available ( beyond comm's ) to satellites !

C, if using a scanning ( I suppose a development so as to be non surface contacting of the 'underground radar' as used by archaeologists ) it wouldn't take long before the enemy caught on to the wavelength, and as I understand it most IED's are planted at the roadside, with a beady-eyed git watching for the juciest target to remotely detonate.

Seriously, I am one of the lucky gits not in the forces ( though I have worked with them a lot ); one thing I feel very strongly is that we should NOT be sending out manned patrols on foot, or sappers trying to find IED's with bayonets etc.

If we are actually using more advanced methods, I and no-one here needs to know about them - though I fear that is wishful thinking.

Going out on foot, toe-to-toe, gun against gun is meeting the enemy on their own terms, on their home ground - I know Vietnam was lost through over-reliance on infant technology, but if ever there was a time to use high tech', it's now.

Otherwise blow the crap out of any roadway - inc' the sides one is facing, by air or ground fire, and everyone stay in ( better ) vehicles ?

Very much more difficult in villages etc; how about military vehicles avoiding them, while the ' hearts & minds ' bit would be kept up by air-drops of food, water, radios etc ? I know some would fall into enemy hands, but better than our guys getting killed...

Anyone in a position to know better & able to say anything, which will not breach security at any level ( the last I/we want is to feed info' to the gits* who I don't doubt read this site ) ? Please chip in.

*Polite version of utter *****

NutLoose

5th Feb 2010, 16:02

Nutloose - very prescient. Look here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019042216778962.html). Gist of which is....

The Afghan government banned ammonium nitrate fertilizers, the key ingredient of roadside bombs that have emerged as the deadliest weapon used by Taliban fighters against NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Thanks Captn Kirk, I had been wondering about that very simple point for some time, I knew we did it in Ireland and could not seeany logical reason as to why it could not be implemented.

Here are some more, simply shut down the Mobile phone Network in Areas of high risk or where patrols are, I cannot believe that the technology is not available, I realise that the military use it so their must be some logical way of jamming it.....

GPS, as it was a Military system and the Americans built it, there must be away to encode it so it can only be accessed by the Military closing the civil side down.

Radio hand helds as used on the TV for detonating IED's, I would take it the prudent use of a transmitter on Vehicles are already in use that put out a high output signal that rapidly transmits through the range of frequencies to detonate any radio controlled bombs before vehicles approach them.

For vehicle actuated pressure devices, I see what is said about flails, but why not have to sprung arms out front carrying two or four normal wheels that would detonate a device forward of the lead vehicle, or better still build a vehicle where all the wheels were on out riggers as such with the main body of the vehicle being mounted like a separate pod between them. does that make sense?

Double Zero

5th Feb 2010, 16:24

Nutloose, Oi !

I am a yachtie, and while I am fortunate ( ? ) to be old enough to have learned to navigate without anything like GPS - in fact it was a science fiction dream to us then - many, many modern yachties would be buggered without it ( civil & amateur flyers, car users & ramblers etc too for that matter ).

When Gulf War 1 broke out, the U.S. cunningly put a spoof signal into the non-friendly GPS (as in everyone else but friendly military ) version; the system already had a built-in inaccuracy of 10-30 metres.

A lot of people found themselves in trouble, particularly sailors who found to their surprise they were doing 500+ knots at 10,000', which is unusual for most sailing boats.

The Iraqi's weren't that bothered, as they could barely read a compass and were on home ground anyway...

The built in error has since been discarded, and in my little boat if I zoom in I get a picture ( not google earth but real time ) of us alongside the appropriate jetty etc.

I think it's been accepted that the bad guys know even better than the good guys as to who is where...

Airborne Aircrew

5th Feb 2010, 16:26

GPS, as it was a Military system and the Americans built it, there must be away to encode it so it can only be accessed by the Military closing the civil side down.Yikes. You'll piss off everyone in the entire world for zero benefit. IED's do not rely upon GPS for triggering unless it was a booby trap to catch ATO moving the device to a safe area... :hmm:

Radio hand helds as used on the TV for detonating IED's, I would take it the prudent use of a transmitter on Vehicles are already in use that put out a high output signal that rapidly transmits through the range of frequencies to detonate any radio controlled bombs before vehicles approach them. Ok, so you want to randomly detonate IED's regardless of the potential for collateral damage. Flies in the face of western policy - won't happen.
For vehicle actuated pressure devices, I see what is said about flails, but why not have to sprung arms out front carrying two or four normal wheels that would detonate a device forward of the lead vehicle,I'll lay out more explosive that will overcome the additional distance to the target. You will make your arms longer, I will make my IED bigger... Eventually you won't be able to drive your vehicle.
or better still build a vehicle where all the wheels were on out riggers as such with the main body of the vehicle being mounted like a separate pod between them. does that make sense?Nice employment opportunity here... widening all the roads and tracks in Afghanistan. Pretty soon they will have a whole new system of 60 goat highways... :}

Try to imagine a bad dream where, no matter what cunning device you contrive, your adversary defeats it in short order and another small piece of you is painfully cut off.

tonker

5th Feb 2010, 17:10

NutLoose

5th Feb 2010, 17:26

Ok, so you want to randomly detonate IED's regardless of the potential for collateral damage. Flies in the face of western policy - won't happen.

I wasn't refering to built up areas

Airborne Aircrew

5th Feb 2010, 17:42

That's ovinicide... :uhoh:

Complicated little issue isn't it... ;)

FakePilot

5th Feb 2010, 17:56

I often wondered as a lot of the explosives used are "cooked" from Fertiliser, why, as they did in Ireland during the troubles, do they simply not make fertilisers with a high nitrate content illegal? there by reducing amount of potential explosive available.

I heard this discussion on CSPAN where they've banned one formula of fertilizer and substituted another, which I assume is harder to make IEDs with.

However it was also mentioned that they raided a huge warehouse full of the stuff and the assumption is there are still huge stockpiles.

Phoney Tony

5th Feb 2010, 18:18

Pontius Navigator

5th Feb 2010, 18:54

If you simply google mine clearance vehicles you get links such as this:

HowStuffWorks "Mine Clearing Machines" (http://science.howstuffworks.com/landmine6.htm)

there is even a Jane's

Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance (http://www.janes.com/extracts/indepth/jmmc.html)

davejb

5th Feb 2010, 18:58

Is this an official joke thread?
Let me see, foot patrols wearing snowshoes - so the bad guy pops up, lets off a few rounds, then scoots off chortling in his Adidas flip flops while the foot patrol waddle after him... Hovercraft, flail tanks turning every road surface into a goat track, vehicles with wheels on the end of legs (you'd be able to drive that down any standard motorway sized road then - might not fit through the middle of a village though). Meanwhile GPS and Mobile phones go off the air, while Johnny Afghan wonders why his TV switches to Postman Pat whenever a landy goes past.

My guess is the next big idea will turn out to be an unintentional rip off from Thunderbirds, perhaps using the Mole?

I think I've figured out why nobody seems to be using Pprune as a think tank....

SASless

5th Feb 2010, 19:23

Tonker. You are so right. The arm forces are the FCO's option of last resort. We need to re-think our standing in the world first then complete SDR. Our position as a world banking/ finance centre has been mortally compromised and our social services and health services are bankrupting us.

PT......did we annex the UK recently? Sure sounds like the situation in the US of A these days and we got three more years to put up with our guy!

T-21

5th Feb 2010, 20:55

Thanks for the input ,the flail idea was bugging me so had to put in here to get feedback as I am fed up seeing our personnel getting killed by IED's,and seeing them arrive at Lyneham in C-17's.( I am a civilian but from an RAF childhood and 1,200 hours instructing with an ATC Gliding School)
Yes we must all be careful posting on here as the nasties may be reading but amazed at the thoughtful discussion it has generated. Davejb this is not a wind up have you tried looking at the MoD website to make a suggestion ?

topgas

5th Feb 2010, 21:05

Surely the best way would be to eliminate the people as they plant them. A week of intense observation of an area by whatever assets we have - anyone digging a hole after dark is unlikely to be doing a bit of overtime filling in potholes for the council. After a few nights when Terry doesn't come back, there might be a shortage of volunteers to take his place.

T-21

5th Feb 2010, 21:10

Would heat detection find these devices ? i.e carry out a heat detection survey before moving troops over the area.
Regarding GPS shut down we could always revert to astro/sun navigation using the sextant. :(

davejb

5th Feb 2010, 21:31

I didn't think it was a wind up, I just had trouble believing people thought these were sensible ideas.

t43562

5th Feb 2010, 21:57

Some other people's "joke ideas" that resulted in the MRAPs that US and UK troops are driving around in today:

AfricanCrisis (http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=49124&)

Two's in

5th Feb 2010, 22:04

Tonker,

How about staying at home and minding our own business!

We are a small bankrupt island off Europe, not the worlds policeman. Not even a community policeman or traffic Womble. Accepting it and moving on will probably defeat the root causes of terrorism a load more than the recruitment campaign for nutters that is Afghanistan/Iraq.

Congratulations, you definitely win the prize for the most comprehensive understanding of the "Cause and Effect" principle. Well done, however unpopular that view may be...

T-21

6th Feb 2010, 07:30

t43562,
Some interesting vehicles there and this is the type of thinking required.

Sun Who

6th Feb 2010, 09:03

https://www.jieddo.dod.mil/index.aspx
Mine and IED Resistant Vehicles | Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/08/mine-and-ied-resistant-vehicles/)

Sun Who

Captain Kirk

6th Feb 2010, 09:48

Predictably, I see some pompous drivel appearing about cause and effect! So 9/11 happened because we invaded Afghanistan right? No wait...Iraq? No...hang on, er....

Back on topic....I accept that sometimes it's the crazy ideas that have merit....but seriously guys/girls, have a think through the second order consequences of some of these suggestions!

Running around in a firefight, in the desert, in snowshoes?! Hello?

Crippling the economy of the entire country by bombing the roads back to dirt tracks? Genius!

But it’s ok because we will airdrop supplies to the civilians that we isolate! Have a think about how much food you need in a month. Multiply x people in a town/village. How much airdrop capacity do you think that requires?

Have a look at a map too. Afghanistan is HUGE.

And what would you think if outsiders came and bombed your local roads...presumably on a daily basis because it would not take long to plant new IEDs in the resultant dirt tracks (and they would then be harder to spot).

We’re trying to SAVE the population of Afghanistan – not actively turn them against us!

That means that we need to stand alongside them, put our troops in harms way alongside them, and demonstrate that we are better than the Taliban (and the many other tribal groups that have crime, narcotics and corrupt control on their agenda that are lumped in with the Taliban), that we will stand by our word, that we will act fairly and honestly and that we can bring a better future to pass.

And we can. Ask the troops on the ground. To quote a young Captain I saw interviewed, ‘We do not want our public’s sympathy because sympathy is for losers – and we’re not losing. We just want their support!’

Staying this course, even with the daily horror of casualties, is more likely to succeed that retreating into our bases, becoming isolated from the population and becoming stuck in a long, drawn out conflict with even more casualties over time.

I’m with dave...a well meaning thread perhaps but comical bordering upon dangerous.

CK out.

PTT

6th Feb 2010, 10:09

Predictably, I see some pompous drivel appearing about cause and effect! So 9/11 happened because we invaded Afghanistan right? No wait...Iraq? No...hang on, er....
Go back a bit further. I guess you are quite happy to build and knock down your own straw men though. :ugh:

higthepig

6th Feb 2010, 16:49

Some interesting vehicles there and this is the type of thinking required.

Are you sure you have not served, you sound like a captain from Walmington-on-Sea.
My 2 suggestions:
Hard pave all the roads, thereby making it very difficult to emplace devices.
Make all Local nationals wear Lycra, thereby making it far easier to spot suicide bombers.

Is that good thinking?:bored:

t43562

6th Feb 2010, 18:18

Sometimes ideas that seem odd turn out to work, sometimes being allowed to think them without being scorned leads to other more practical ideas.

I have often been amazed at how various things I think would never work do and make the people who did them rich.

I would guess that a lot of effort is being put in to all this officially though people "on the outside" sometimes have an unusual and useful perspective. Even with 60 million people it is still possible for an individual to have unique skills or insight in Britain.

The real proof of this stuff is if you were prepared to go out in your inflatable shoes and walk over IEDs yourself. If you're prepared to put your life on the line for your own idea then perhaps people should say "good for you and good luck." From a distance. :-)

davejb

6th Feb 2010, 19:17

The real proof of this stuff is if you were prepared to go out in your inflatable shoes and walk over IEDs yourself.

Sometimes (quite often) all this proves is that the idea was bloody stupid in the first place.

It helps to remember that whilst outlandish ideas sometimes work, usually they don't - it is a common misconception that because 'daft' ideas sometimes pan out that all daft ideas have merit... if this thread were actually intended to generate good ideas for use in Afghanistan then posters might do well to remember a couple of basic 'rules' of the game -
such as

1) We are ostensibly there to support a democratic government, with the overal aim (I presume) of making the Afghan government strong enough to maintain internal security without further support.

2) We are not there to punish the locals, to strip their country of assets, or to damage the Afghan infrastructure (such as it is).

3) They are not an enemy nation that we have conquered, we aren't intentionally in there to kill everyone who looks at us funny.

Consequently good ideas shouldn't involve indiscriminate slaughter of anyone holding a spade, or turning the road network into an allotment.

SASless

6th Feb 2010, 19:31

Dave,

Your comment.....

Consequently good ideas shouldn't involve indiscriminate slaughter of anyone holding a spade, or turning the road network into an allotment.

How many folks repair potholes in the middle of the night in Afghanistan?

Evidently you do not appreciate the length the Coalition Forces go to in confirming "hostile intent" before taking action. The mere holding of a Spade does not warrant a hostile action.....holding one while emplacing an IED does....carrying a Spade in hand as one leaves the site where one has just emplaced an IED qualifies as well.

Should it not?

NutLoose

6th Feb 2010, 19:48

AfricanCrisis (http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=49124)&

Well there you go DaveJB, exactly what I meant, wheels remote from the body pod and the body shaped to deflect the blast AND IT WORKS.......... Call me old fashioned, but I cannot see the logic of putting the driver directly over the wheels unless you are hoping to use the axle as extra protection,

I also cannot understand why we over complicate military vehicles these days what with fuel computers and those for the drive train...... So it may meet UK emission requirements etc, but in the field you need something that can be repaired locally using the basic of tools, I work on piston Aero Engines amongst other things that can loose a cylinder and will still run, indeed they can and have got people across the channel and to an Airport, they can have a cylinder replaced in a couple of hours with a few basic spanners..... Bar the landrover most of the new stuff appears to have lost that simplicity of repair.

The image of a column of £1,000,000 vehicles being lead down a road by a man walking with a metal detector sums up why what i suggested (and appears to have been successfully developed) is needed.

You seem to think just because we mention something then we are talking about using them in built up areas, far from it, when you see some of the paths these guys have to clear up observation hills etc the facility to simply go through all the radio frequencies to detonate one radio controlled IED and save the life of one person would make the whole idea worthwhile. Also I seem to remember the UK they were developing a localised mobile phone jammer to nullify their usage in certain buildings, but then scanning the phone frequencies with the first suggestion would be a possibility.

Gunnerrock

6th Feb 2010, 19:50

I have been pondering about this for a while now. I believe what is needed is more eyes on the areas/routes that IEDs are being laid/used. We presently have a few UAVs but do we have enough for the size of the task? While Predator B and Reaper are fantastic pieces of kit but they are quite expensive. Wiki quotes Reaper at $10.5 million for one aircraft with sensors. This price does not include ground crew/aircrew, satellite bandwidth cost etc.etc.
Why not have a low cost airframe that has medium endurance/range (5 hours), with a medium cost surveillance pod, manned by people actually in the aircraft?
After a bit of research it seems we could actually buy one straight of the shelf!
The Seeker Sb7l-360A seems ideal for the task, already proven in desert conditions of the Middle East as it was bought by the new Iraqi Air Force.

http://www.seabirdaviation.com.au/pages/uploads/file/Articles/2009%20Info%20Pack.pdf

Not only could they warn and report IEDs (and be used as FAC to call in Air/Artillary/Mortar fire on the IED teams) but could be used for other FP aspects - Searching for IDF teams around KAF/BAS etc.They could also be used by providing real time aerial surveillance to Coy level operations being on the same net as the troops below.
If we had a few Sqns of these aircraft we could could have more eyes on. We don't even have to crew them with Officers. SNCOs could do the task of both pilot and observer (RAF Regt)

Well, that's my two pence worth anyway......

NutLoose

6th Feb 2010, 20:03

Already have one, was used in Iraq

Diamond Aircraft :: Major break through for Diamond Airborne Sensing; UK MoD operates DA42MPPs (http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M56a1757feec.html)

RAF buys spy planes to monitor enemies from the sky - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2630186/RAF-buys-spy-planes-to-monitor-enemies-from-the-sky.html)

Green Flash

6th Feb 2010, 20:24

Granted, there have been some weird/wonderfull/daft ideas proposed but history tells us that sometimes a weird/wonderfull/daft idea becomes an real breakthrough. At least some people are using their brains. And as my dear old Granny used to say, if it's daft and it works - it's not daft.

davejb

6th Feb 2010, 20:56

Evidently you do not appreciate the length the Coalition Forces go to in confirming "hostile intent" before taking action.

Good try to misread what I'm saying, but no coconut - I'm not saying, and never have said, that we are operating a policy of shooting without reasonable confirmation of intent, I'm saying that some of the suggestions on this thread are being overly simplistic and apparently indifferent to any appreciation that we are supposedly attempting to assist a friendly government and people.. look back at post 12 for example, where you said

When they pulled out....the area reeked of success and they had taken no causualties themselves. Fight fire with fire when the circumstances provide the opportunity. Deny the roads to the Taliban then move to the trails....make it very dangerous for them to be moving....box them up....then run the B-52's in on them using JDAMS. Forget this patroling and being the target only.

We aren't at war with Afghanistan, we're supposedly there to help them esatblish a lawful society. I think you'll find, correct me if I'm wrong, that Vietnam didn't prove a model of how to win over a population?

There appears to be a perception on here that the forces are muddling along a bit and just need a bunch of retired folk (or those with no previous experience at all) to come up with some wizard wheezes.

If you want to avoid casualties then you either need to stay in camp and build rocket and mortar proof bunkers, or you need very good recce and intel. Until we win the majority of Afghan nationals over (don't hold your breath waiting) then these are going to be very hard to come by except on a very local and short term basis.

Dave

Why don't I post good ideas myself, as somebody suggested earlier? Well, I haven't had any, and I've the sense to realise that.

Basil

6th Feb 2010, 20:59

T-21

6th Feb 2010, 21:47

The whole ethos of this thread is to try and stop the use of IEDs killing our soldiers. We know why the Army and Government is in Afghanistan. How is it then that American forces IED casualties are lighter than ours ? better anti-IED equipment ?

tonker

6th Feb 2010, 22:03

Helicopters

SASless

7th Feb 2010, 00:31

Basil,

Beyond it being a victory for the British....and a tribute to the spirit, grit, and sheer courage of the Troops involved....just how is the UK holding onto a small group of islands at the far end of the World so important in the long run.

You are no longer a Colonial power.....why not go all the way and surrender your remaining "colonies"....grant them their independence and pull out altogether. Your military capability has withered to the point you cannot defend what is left of the Empire.

Could the British Forces of today repeat their success in the Falkands again?

Dave,

[/QUOTE]We aren't at war with Afghanistan, we're supposedly there to help them esatblish a lawful society.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you completely about needing accurate and timely Intel, and proper Recce/Force Protection efforts.

Until we can provide the necessary security for the nation building to take place....which means fighting the Taliban Forces that are resisting such efforts....we have to wage war on the Taliban.

As to using Vietnam as a model of winning the hearts and minds you are quite correct. We bombed our allies and never invaded the enemy homeland. We also got ourselves involved in a war of Re-unification and took up where the French left off. That was the core failure of the war....we should have been helping the Vietnmamese instead of fighting them. We had our chance several times when Ho Chi Minh asked for our help while he was helping us fight the Japanese then French.

We made a similar mistake in Iraq when Paul Breamer fired the entire Iraqi government, police, and military....cut off retirement pay and thus gave the Iraqi's good cause to come out and fight!

We are supposed to be fighting Terrorists and depriving them of sanctuaries....how do we do that is the question now. Thus far, we are having some success despite some awful setbacks and delays. As we run them out of one place....they will take up in another. The key is we have them on the run and once they are in the open and on the move we can operate much more effectively against them covertly.

NutLoose

7th Feb 2010, 02:17

Beyond it being a victory for the British....and a tribute to the spirit, grit, and sheer courage of the Troops involved....just how is the UK holding onto a small group of islands at the far end of the World so important in the long run.

Oil and Minerals, there is an untapped wealth of both in the Southern Oceans and that is why we hold onto those so called little Islands and their territorial waters....

Ohh and the fact the benn.... erm.....stil...... erm..... Falkland Islanders wish to remain part of the UK as do the Gibraltese .. Spelling :uhoh:

Vesper1

7th Feb 2010, 04:09

I think many are confusing just exactly what an IED is. There is a big difference between a military grade land mine and an IED. An IED is just that, an 'improvised' explosive device. The IRA were masters of this particular device and every time the British found a method of dealing with a device, the IRA would improvise it further to nullify that method, or even make it a trigger action.

The chain tanks were primarily dealing with predictable known types of mechanisms. That is not the case with an IED.

T-21

7th Feb 2010, 06:30

Thanks Vesper, So as Tonker said we need more helicopters. We have military defence studies at Sandhurst and Shrivenham who play out military scenarios why the lack of brains on this one ?

barnstormer1968

7th Feb 2010, 10:57

As a very much armchair general, can I just add my observations.

While I would love for us to come up with a fool proof mechanical/electronic means of defeating IED's, and am sure that all the coalition forces are doing their best to get as close to this as possible, I fear there is only one way to guarantee to detect IED's, and only a couple to stop them injuring our troops.

It seems that for several decades the only way to guarantee finding an IED is to have troops on the ground, who then find it in the worst possible way.

To stop them injuring our troops, the baddies either need to stop laying them, or to tell us where they all are!

Sorry if that sounds crass or over simplistic, and I wish it was not this way.
In the meantime, I wish all our troops as safe a time as possible, and keep relying on our best kit, including the mk1 eyeball.
Just my two penneth.

hval

7th Feb 2010, 11:35

@ barnstormer1968

Well written.

In addition. With IEDs you have to think in three dimensions; not only as to where they may be placed, but also as to direction of charges. You also have to think of stacked or layered IEDs or linked or a combination. Then IEDs don't have to look like an IED should look like (stick of dynamite, coiled wires and ticking clock). Detectors don't help as you may see an object and not know it is an IED. Other times due to composition & size of IEDs, even when surface laid you may not see them. Someone has mentioned ground penetration radar and also "detecting disturbed soil". That's fine as long as they are buried and can be picked up by the survey kit. But many IEDs do not conform to this. There may also be many false positives. There are many other issues and potential solutions. Not all work in all situations. A mixture of solutions is often required, and even then won't be 100 % effective.

The best solutions are to avoid said areas, good intel, helicopters (helps a bit, but not when at location), or to blow the whole place up and set off all IEDS.

Much missed out, but hopefully my posting indicates some of the difficulties.

Hval

Thelma Viaduct

7th Feb 2010, 12:40

How about staying at home and minding our own business!
We are a small bankrupt island off Europe, not the worlds policeman. Not even a community policeman or traffic Womble. Accepting it and moving on will probably defeat the root causes of terrorism a load more than the recruitment campaign for nutters that is Afghanistan/Iraq.Hit - Nail - Head

To cut a long story short, the US & A were attacked because they've basically been resource driven global arseholes.

It's as if this country feels they owe the US & A a debt from WW2, but people forget they only joined the war effort 2 years down the line and after they were themselves attacked. The UK has only recently in the past few years paid back the war debt to our great 'special' friend.

Bollocks to the spams, let them sort out their own latest self inflicted mess, as I'm sure in the future there will be more.

No UK soldier's life is worth anything in Iraq, Afghan and certainly not a country full of war mongering to$$ers in the US & A, they're all ****holes.

Just my 2p worth. :)

NutLoose

7th Feb 2010, 13:00

For what it is worth I agree with all the posts, but sometimes thinking out of the box brings forth Ideas that can produce a totally new concept at a fraction of the costs that the Arms companies would spend on R and D.

The Americans have seen the benefits of this and are vigourously pursuing it and it is starting to pay results, The Rip Saw was developed for less than Bae would use as supposed "backhanders" ( $10 million ) and combines clever design and a totally new approach to an age old problem of track design. And that is why peoples suggestions no matter how "cranky" are valuable, you never know someone may think, hey that has merits............... and the rest is history

see

Howe & Howe - Vehicles (http://www.howeandhowetechnologies.com/vehicles.php)

BTW I want one of those Mini ones....... looks fun

SASless

7th Feb 2010, 14:03

Pious Young Lad,

I reckon you think you would have whipped the Germans and Japanese all by yer selves!

If we had not joined the affray for the second time in forty years you would be speaking German, eating Schnitzel, and driving VW's.

Perhaps if the UK and Europeans had done more to put Hitler into his place early on, there would have been no war and we dstardly Americans would not have been forced to participate and could have lived on in Peace way across the Atlantic and have defended our own shores.

You recall Hitler did not want war with the United States....as he did not with the UK either....but when it all went egg shaped....your government declared War on the Germans despite not having been attacked by them.

Who do you reckon is more responsible for your war debt.....your political leaders who declared War....the Germans....or the Americans?

Read your history Lad.....all of it!

SPIT

7th Feb 2010, 17:53

Hi
Didn't the Yanks have a new method in Afg ****** (can't spell thee rest) of mine/IED finding and disposal but due to their security they will NOT tell their Allies ??? :confused::confused:

Tourist

7th Feb 2010, 19:01

WOW!
This thread started out a bit childlike with suggestions for getting rid of IEDs like you might get from a keen 10yr old.
Then it moved quickly onto childish "we hate the Yanks for getting us into this"
And now, it has moved onto astonishingly infantile consiracy theories!
Normally it takes many pages for Pprune to degenerate so far.
That's progress for you........

Mr C Hinecap

7th Feb 2010, 19:05

sometimes thinking out of the box brings forth Ideas that can produce a totally new concept at a fraction of the costs that the Arms companies would spend on R and D.

Really?

Why do so many people think we're not into this sort of thing as well?

Home | Defence Science and Technology Laboratory | dstl (http://www.dstl.gov.uk/)

Some good stuff comes out of this lot.

'Helicopters' isn't the answer to IEDs. You need troops on the ground regardless of how you move them between locations. Helicopters does reduce convoys etc, but you still need boots on the ground.

barnstormer1968

7th Feb 2010, 20:57

Mr Hinecap.
I think I can't get the grasp of your above post.
While I don't recall stacks of posters telling of how we don't do R and D on counter IED, that is a side issue.
Quote:
sometimes thinking out of the box brings forth Ideas that can produce a totally new concept at a fraction of the costs that the Arms companies would spend on R and D.
Really?

Why do so many people think we're not into this sort of thing as well?

If I have this right, A poster said that thinking out of the box can be a good thing, and cheaper than traditional R and D, and you counter this by saying that we do R and D in the traditional sense?

There have been countless examples of how 'the chap on the street' has solved a problem that years of government/MOD thinking has not achieved as good a result.

All light blue types should know how the Brits had thought the vic formation was the best doctrine for flyers to use, and look where that got us! By simply using something that worked (well, ok, copying the Germans, but at zero cost) we then transformed our dogfight scores, and the adopted system is still in use today

Basil

7th Feb 2010, 21:32

SASless,
just how is the UK holding onto a small group of islands at the far end of the World so important in the long run.
As NutLoose pointed out there is greater reason to retain sovereignty over The Falklands than a mere desire to lord it over one of the few remaining pieces of pink on the atlas.
Perhaps the UK should also hand over control of Ascension Island - but wait! - wouldn't that give Wideawake away too? ;)

Mr C Hinecap

7th Feb 2010, 21:43

barnstormer - my bad - the link should have been:

Centre for Defence Enterprise (http://www.science.mod.uk/engagement/enterprise.aspx)

I've seen some great work from both and put up the wrong link from my Favourites. I hope this one will demonstrate a little more of the 'blue sky' stuff. Some of the posters on this thread might want to formally submit their thoughts. :E

barnstormer1968

7th Feb 2010, 23:16

OK, here is a starter for ten.
There is often something in the wider system, and not just IED hunting, that causes friction, and often increased fatigue. I think it is a reflection on Britain that this item continues to be used, as it is often cited as poor value for money, and not fit for its purpose. Although many foot soldiers have little confidence in this item, it continues to be a deciding factor in many conflicts we are involved in.
I am not sure if it has a proper NSN, but this item is generally referred to as 'M.P.':E

T-21

8th Feb 2010, 07:59

Mr Hinecap,

Thanks for the link as a civilian I have never heard of CDE. Some interesting debate although some off thread on world politics. Now realising how nasty IEDs are thanks to HVALs post and what a difficult job the bomb disposal teams do.

t43562

13th Feb 2010, 00:26

Marines roll out Assault Breacher Vehicles for Marjah Afghanistan offensive (http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/19574)

SASless

13th Feb 2010, 00:34

A piccie of the beast.....

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/news/2007/06/marine_engineer_vehicle_070609/abv_day_800_070608.JPG

T-21

13th Feb 2010, 16:20

Thanks for that this is what I have been hoping for !

TEEEJ

13th Feb 2010, 23:53

Some video of the Breacher in action

Battle Looms in Afghanistan - CBS News Video (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6202973n&tag=related;photovideo)

TJ

t43562

18th Feb 2010, 07:07

Britain not outdone:

Engineers put Trojan to work on suspected IED belts - British Army Website (http://www.army.mod.uk/news/19299.aspx)

They kept quiet about it till they had to say something, didn't they. :-)

T-21

18th Feb 2010, 13:32

Yes, and what is disturbing is just how many IED's the advance push have found exceeding expectations . Should we have moved on the Operation earlier to give them less time to plant IED's ?

Piltdown Man

18th Feb 2010, 13:49

Move troops in a highly visible Comet or Curry's van loaded with Flat screens, DVD players, Fridges etc. Dish them out on arrival. Make regular visits, lay down some power lines and maybe the locals might even tell you where the miserable F:mad:s have planted the things. You could give away thousands of these bloody things and be in profit if the life of one of just our guys was saved. Turn the power off if people start getting naughty again.

Slightly flippant I know, but our politicians haven't been that honest and the poor sods on the front line and innocent locals are paying the price.

PM