British Army deploys new weapon based on mass-killing tech

#1
A new 'super-weapon' being supplied to British soldiers in Afghanistan employs technology based on the "thermobaric" principle which uses heat and pressure to kill people targeted across a wide air by sucking the air out of lungs and rupturing internal organs.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/British_Army_deploys_new_weapon_based_0823.html

Not sure who the pic is of though. Looks Russian to me...

msr
 
#3
This is the MoD Press offices idea of a good press release to engage the General Public in the mission and so increase support of the Troops.

Brilliant, cannot fail.
 
#6
It drives you nuts how bad the reporting is on these kinds of stories. The technology isn't even that complicated. "Explosive is mainly chemical oxygen. If you can get your oxygen from the air you can have a lot more "active ingredient". In theory using the air gives you ten times more oomph for a given weight of device. In reality it is hard to get the mix right so 4 times more total oomph is nearer the mark. So a 4lb bomb on the front of a shoulder fired rocket produces about the same energy as 16lb of HE, but the explosive is much slower than HE so it is a more progressive push..." I mean, how much do they pay the defence and science correspondents on TV and in the papers?
 
#7
Defence officials described the new weapon as a shoulder-launched "light anti-structure munition".

They said the bombs would be more effective than conventional weapons such as anti-tank missiles which often miss their targets.
Did they really say that?

Sounds to me like the bunker busting 66 type thing (CLAW?) which we were being promised 16 years ago.

Doubt it's a more horrible way to go than being shot, bayoneted, torn up with grenades, etc etc. Just different.
 
#8
sounds like a crock of sh*te to me.. and besides whats the problem here? A weapon that actually kills people? Alert the media!! These maniacs must be stopped :roll:
 
#9
EX_STAB said:
Defence officials described the new weapon as a shoulder-launched "light anti-structure munition".

They said the bombs would be more effective than conventional weapons such as anti-tank missiles which often miss their targets.
Did they really say that?

Sounds to me like the bunker busting 66 type thing (CLAW?) which we were being promised 16 years ago.

Doubt it's a more horrible way to go than being shot, bayoneted, torn up with grenades, etc etc. Just different.
Thats what I was thinking EX, they must think we all run around with flowers down the barrels blowing kisses at all and sundry. WTF do they think happens in a war!! 8O
 
#10
Strange how this story hit the TV 2 days ago, and shortly after the journo's 'Enhanced Blast' thread here on good ol' ARRSE
 
#11
still21inmymind said:
Strange how this story hit the TV 2 days ago, and shortly after the journo's 'Enhanced Blast' thread here on good ol' ARRSE
Yep see my comment to PTP. It'll be the "how horrible a way to die" Brigade in action.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/m74rocket.html

Got rid of lots of these a long time ago - instant erection :twisted:

And it wasn't Pyrotechnic - it was Pyrophoric - and it was!
 
#13
EX_STAB said:
Defence officials described the new weapon as a shoulder-launched "light anti-structure munition".

They said the bombs would be more effective than conventional weapons such as anti-tank missiles which often miss their targets.
Did they really say that?

Sounds to me like the bunker busting 66 type thing (CLAW?) which we were being promised 16 years ago.

Doubt it's a more horrible way to go than being shot, bayoneted, torn up with grenades, etc etc. Just different.

further on down it has,

soldier launched "light anti-structure munition"

so a complete understanding of the workings of hte weapon was gained :roll:
 
#14
gobbyidiot said:
It drives you nuts how bad the reporting is on these kinds of stories. The technology isn't even that complicated. "Explosive is mainly chemical oxygen. If you can get your oxygen from the air you can have a lot more "active ingredient". In theory using the air gives you ten times more oomph for a given weight of device. In reality it is hard to get the mix right so 4 times more total oomph is nearer the mark. So a 4lb bomb on the front of a shoulder fired rocket produces about the same energy as 16lb of HE, but the explosive is much slower than HE so it is a more progressive push..." I mean, how much do they pay the defence and science correspondents on TV and in the papers?
Is this the same principle to the 5 lt can of petrol and small PE bursting charge?

Or the very large daisy cutter bomb rolled out the back of a herk?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Erm, would such a thing work on the principle of a fuel-air bomb perhaps? The only way you are going to increase the pressure-wave is by a fuel-air mix and subsequent ignition. Tried, tested and done with vehicle and air-dropped weapons. As for sucking up all the oxygen - what a load of shoit. You won't get both unless you combine it with napalm or large quantities of phos.

Watch this beastie! :D
 
#16
I watched DERA playing with these in 2000. The warhead is about the size of a half pint beer mug. Awesome does not do it justice - it completely demolished a Copehill Down style concrete OBUA house. Fired into the ground floor it pushed all the walls out and the first and second floors descended into the space vacated by the ground floor -fanfuckingtastic. These make OBUA a very one-sided game but the collateral damage is extreme.

I don't understand why it has taken us 7 years to procure and deploy them.
 
#17
Biped said:
Erm, would such a thing work on the principle of a fuel-air bomb perhaps? The only way you are going to increase the pressure-wave is by a fuel-air mix and subsequent ignition. Tried, tested and done with vehicle and air-dropped weapons. As for sucking up all the oxygen - what a load of shoit. You won't get both unless you combine it with napalm or large quantities of phos.

Watch this beastie! :D
Slightly more helpful video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk&NR=1
 
#18
Presumably the tricky bits are i) getting the little explosive packet to spray the fuel just right without igniting it, and ii) then coordinating the spark so that the mixture isn't too lean or too rich.
 
#20
gobbyidiot said:
Presumably the tricky bits are i) getting the little explosive packet to spray the fuel just right without igniting it, and ii) then coordinating the spark so that the mixture isn't too lean or too rich.
Like an Atom Bomb the concept is simple - but your right, the mechanics is very complicated and very high tech to get it right.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm
 

Latest Threads

Top