Slashdot Mirror
DIY Ordnance Disposal With An RC Truck
kpw10 writes "My company, Tackle Design, put together a do it yourself ordnance disposal robot for use by one of the partners in our company, currently serving in Iraq. It is a very simple solution costing only about $1,000, but it performs the same functions as the super-expensive robots issued by the military. We looking to see if we can get more of these devices over there - particularly as the treat of IEDs seems to be on the rise. We're also looking into including more advanced cameras and other types of sensors including explosives detectors (MEMS and SAW based) as well as RF detectors."
Well?
The first glaring problem with this is the use of a radio controled device in close proximity to ordinance. One of the first things they tell you, and continue to repeatedly tell you, about situations with IED's and UXO's (Unexploded Ordinance) is NOT to use any radios or electrical devices for an area around them. Presumably these "overly expensive" robots used by the experts are not just expensive for kicks, but, among other things, have sheilding and control systems to counter this danger.
A do it yourself aproach is admirable in a lot of situations, however, when dealing with military and terrorist style explosives, It seems doubtful that's the time to employ the pioneering spirit. The EOD guys are there for a reason, and this is one case where patience is a virtue.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
I think they mean ordnance, not ordinance. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine, along with affect/effect, its/it's, etc.
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
It needs to be milspec in order for the military to use it, especially in a combat situation. It will take you a long long time to get this device approved and assigned a milspec number. I mean, like, years. I really hope the war is over before then. But it looks like Bush will just start up another war, so you may be in luck.
Also, the military generally only does business with military contractors. This is starting to change, at least in principal. There has been a recent push for COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) purchases, to save money, but there is still a huge amount of paperwork and bureaucracy to deal with. They are going to have to take your robot and freeze it, bake it, irradiate it, EMP it, and maybe even shoot at it. All at great taxpayer expense.
I salute you and your idea, but you should be forewarned about the effort involved. Also, my experience with this is limited. My close friend designed a rebreather that was almost assigned a milspec number by the US Navy. After several years and millions of dollars in testing and a final report approving the rebreather, the navy decided to stick with it's current model. I suspect this had something to do with internal politics that I should not even speculate on. Basically, my friend had put two years of his life into this, had a better machine which outperformed and way underpriced the competition, was one signature away from a milspec number assignment, and suddenly he got the silent treatment.
So, basically, I'm saying Be prepared for a lot of red tape. Oh, and you may need to be ISO 9001 certified. Which is basically another form of red tape.
High technology counts for about zero in a guerilla war. But to the extent that fiddling with the next gadget takse your mind off the main goal, viz, making yourself liked by the locals, then leaving, it is counterproductive.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
... particularly as the treat of IEDs seems to be on the rise.
;-)
i hardly think anyone views IEDs as a treat
While this device will work in a lot of situations, there are actually some damn good reasons that the military pays a lot of money for the EOD systems they buy.
Example one: Intrinsic safety. This is something that's used a lot in fuel and chemical industries. The basic idea is to design the system so that no component that is exposed to the outside world can cause a spark. This is not as straightforward as you might think. And it's definitely a feature I'd want implemented for a robot that's going to be crawling around IEDs.
Example two: Verification. This new system is a great thing-- don't get me wrong-- but it's essentially just a hack. Typical procurement for something like this is going to include a whole series of tests under a LOT of different conditions. This new thing-- well, I'm sure it works just fine in the garage.
Example three: Landline control. One of the key rules when dealing with UXOs (UneXploded Ordnance) is that you never use a radio within a certain distance of the UXO. Hand radios must be at least 25 feet away, car-mounted radios must be at least 100 feet away. This is done because there is a chance that the trigger for a given ordnance might be radio-based. A lot of robots come with landline controls for just that reason. Makes me a little anxious about seeing a radio-controlled truck as the base for an EOD system.
There are other issues, too. Image quality, level of control over the motors, you name it. There's a lot more to ordnance disposal than simply getting a camera up close to the damn thing and sending back a picture.
That said, a system like this probably WILL work in the majority of cases, especially in Iraq. I just don't think it'll ever be adopted by the military, despite its obvious usefulness.
This is one of the reasons that there is so much milspec testing (and hence the $500 hammers). I mentioned in another post that my friend had developed a rebreather for military use (http://www.steammachines.com/aa1-Testing.asp). One of the primary uses of a military rebreather is to defuse underwater mines. Originally we sent in SCUBA divers to defuse mines. Then the soviets started adding audio sensors to listen for bubbles. After a few SEALs got blown up the navy added more requirements to the mission gear, and more testing, and we started sending in rebreathers, which are silent. Then the soviets added metal detectors to their mines and more SEALs got all blowed up. So we started using non-ferrous metals like brass and inconnel and more testing and more specs. Then the soviets added sensors for electromagnetic fields, and when the rebreathers O2 injecttion solonoid fires, youe guessed it, more SEALs got blowed up. So, now we need low wattage solonoids and shielded electronics, and more tests and specs... I may be mistaken about what order the SEALs got blown up in, or whether they were EODs guys instead, but you get the idea.
So that is an instance where the military testing really means something. There are a million ways that something can go wrong, and combat is a special situation with it's own set of rules. On top of that the military is so concerned with it's soldiers getting blown up, at least by their own gear, that they go way overboard with the safeguards sometimes.
For those of you who don't know, it should be "ordnance" rather than "ordinance".
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: ordinance
Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s, 'or-d&n-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging, from Medieval Latin ordinantia, from Latin ordinant-, ordinans, present participle of ordinare to put in order -- more at ORDAIN
1 a : an authoritative decree or direction : ORDER b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation
2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity
3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony synonym see LAW
Main Entry: ordnance
Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ordinaunce, from Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging
1 a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment b : a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
2 : CANNON, ARTILLERY
We now return to our regularly scheduled flamewars.
"Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
One of the first things they tell you, and continue to repeatedly tell you, about situations with IED's and UXO's (Unexploded Ordinance) is NOT to use any radios or electrical devices for an area around them.
The first glaring problem with your post is that twice you used the term "ordinance" when referring to explosives and munitions. Not once did you make mention of "ordnance", so that is telling.
Do you know what an "Ordinance" is?
Here's the definition.
2. A custom or practice established by long usage.
3. A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
4. A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.
Do you know what "Ordnance" is?
Here's the definition.
2. The branch of an armed force that procures, maintains, and issues weapons, ammunition, and combat vehicles.
3. Cannon; artillery.
Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, because the summary of TFA calls it "Ordinance Disposal", I still smell bullshit.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This will get somebody killed. Let EOD do the job correctly
Does anyone else find it depressing that US services personnel seem to be increasingly buying their own equipment?
.50 BMG here will be classified as "assault weapons" and subject to ban/registration/confiscation/destruction, thanks to our overzealous Citizen's Protection Committee in Sacramento.
.50BMG, Nato 5.56mm, and accessories for both. Magazine shortages? With the expiration of the infamously ineffective Assault Weapons Ban, NEW 30 round magazines are available for cheap (30 round mags were always available, even during the ban, but were slightly more expensive than market prices would dictate in absence of the ban on new manufacture for civilian use.)
I find it rather refreshing, actually. Can you imagine how long the testing and approvals process would be to introduce anything of use on the battlefield? And how many taxpayer dollars would be used to do it? Remember, everything has to be bid on (well, almost everything). And for an individual soldier to justify having to get different equipment in a system designed to supply the same thing to pretty much everyone is a daunting thought.
I'd rather just give my tax money over to the soldiers, and have them spend it on what they need (whether it be Jolly Rancher hard candies, or Level IV body armor.) I imagine they can BUY better rifles as citizens from private dealers here in the states, than they get issued. There are exceptions to this of course - places like New Jersy, Massachussets, and New York, where the government has decided that citizens cannot be trusted to arm themselves. The People's Republic of California has publicly declared sniper/hunter/target shooter types unwelcome here, and come Jan 1st, 2005, rifles chambering
Pretty much anywhere else in the country, you can pick up tuned rifles chambering
Keep in mind that for regular army troops, the US already provides a mind-boggling array of equipment that nobody else in the world issues to average troops (as opposed to elite assault units.) GPS, night vision, aimpoint scopes, etc. This has its own logistical supply issues of course (ie, having to haul batteries of several different types).
i recall even from Gulf War I that soldiers were bringing their own GPS kit.
There weren't enough of the military descrambling GPS receivers to go around (again, a logistical issue, not necessarialy a money issue). They got around this by turning off the selective degradation provided for civilian use (now off by default) and just buying truckloads of off the shelf civilian receivers. With the degradation off in that area, soldiers who didn't want to wait for the new units to percolate through the supply chain probably opted just to buy their own. Logistics (and prioritization) again.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
2. The terrian that the truck would have to cope with may well be beyond that of a RC, along with that many landmines are based on weight and this solution would not cover mines aimed at vehicles.
3. There are landmines that have such a low level of metal as to be undetectable via any cheap metal detector.
Sorry for posting anon, I don't have a clue what my password is. Just to make your day, almost all countries with landmine problems use manual methods for removing UXO's - it's cheaper to pay a person and risk having a limb blown off
20 years ago, true, but I was a Combat Engineer in the Marine Corps.
In a perfect world, you call up the Engineers, and they handle it. In peacetime you may even be able to call up the EOD guys to handle it. In war, they're never around when you want them. But we usually are.
True, as pointed out, you don't want a lot of stray RF around, esp. since these IEDs are mostly controlled by your car alarm system key fob. However, if your frequencies are not in that range, it won't set it off.
If it does set it off? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! That's what we do! We are not some movie or TV show hero who defuses the bomb! Most of the time we prefer to set it off in place to eliminate the threat.
If these little robots can lug a block of C4 up to the IED, and either get away before the C4 is set off, (prefered) or sacrifice itself and get rid of it, good job! I've almost pissed my pants doing the same thing, hoping that the device wouldn't go off when I touched it.
To sum up: in war, it's not about defusing, it's about detonating (safely) so the mission can continue!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Many IEDs in Iraq are manufactured out of old artillery shells (the country is awash in them). They're readily available, have fusing apparatus already attached, and have a frangible metal shell that produces plenty of shrapnel. As a bonus, They're relatively safe to handle, and even rookie terrorists can drop one next to a roadway and run.
.50 caliber Barrett rifles . An incendiary .50 caliber round will make short work of many IEDs and other ordnance.
Why bother with something volatile or percussion sensitive? Nitro? Picrates? You'd kill more of your buddies handling that stuff than you would kill intended targets.
Plastic explosive is also used, but you typically can't set that off just by shooting it. Most plastic explosives are fairly insensitive to percussion, and require some sort of chaining, or booster explosive to set them off (like a blasting cap attached to some detonation cord, for instance).
Burning is an idea, since most plastic explosives will burn... but you could do that by simply soaking it in diesel fuel and lighting it up (old dynamite is sometimes disposed of in this way)... you might not even need tracers.
Conceptually, though, I like the way you think... far better to sit back at a safe distance and light it up with a rifle. The EOD guys do something similar to this with the
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Most "repurposible" radio receivers use one or more local oscillators in their circuits to "down convert" the RF signal into a range more easily demodulated. This involves locally generating a RF signal of a certain frequency and mixing it in with the incoming signal in a non-linear device.
/. article.
These local oscillator signals "leak out" of the reciever and can be detected remotely. The existence of these leaks is why radio recievers are not allowed on airplanes and are a way in which unlicensed television sets are detected in countries which require them to be licensed.
I presume this process is what is being eluded to by the reference to RF detectors at the end of the
I am surprised that RF detection methods are not in service already (if they would work). Perhaps Iraq is a very RF noisy place and RF analysis is only as useful as metal detection - there would be so many false alarms from cell phones, TV sets, sparking power line insulators, etc., that it really would not help.