Does Britains new weapon break Geneva Convention

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Rumrunner, Feb 5, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Thermobarics only break the GenCon if used against civilians, I think.
    Mind you, would have been handy against those cnuts with the "Kill the Infidel" placards in London and elsewhere the other day.
     
  2. It sounds like a good bit of kit, but why make our own? why not just buy from the Yanks??


    Sparky
     
  3. Are they confusing this with the purchase of NLAW, whcih has a built-in 'bunker-busting' mode as well as the conventional top-attack AT mode?
     
  4. What "existing Panzerfaust"?

    Does anyone have a copy of Jane's that they could send to the IoS research bimbo?

    Shoulder-launched from a stand-off position will be fine.
     
  5. Reading the piece we learn that:

    1. Thermobaric weapons might be against the Geneva Convention
    2. The British Army's weapons will not be of thermobaric type

    So, the main thing of note about this is that the journalist/sub-editor has blown the story 'British Army to procure new weapon' into 'British Army might be doing something dodgy, and if you don't read the story carefully, you'll think they are'.
     
  6. Erm is NLAW the same as MBT-LAW will be? And what is the ILAW (interim? intermediate?) going to be between now and then?
    Why do we not just buy the Bofors one (AT4?), the Americans have been well impressed by it.
     
  7. I got that bit, but it does say that it is going to be adapted, were as the US one has already seen service, buy something tried and tested and it saves money.

    Sparky
     
  8. I thought it was the Swedes who made 'em? O well. Who makes the current LAW94 anyway? Royal ordnance?
     
  9. Whoever makes it its going to ruin someone's day.

    http://www.armada.ch/03-4/001.cfm
     
  10. nah it wont .
     

  11. All one and the same, I believe - i think MBT-LAW was a contender for the N(Next Generation) LAW Programme.

    http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0126.html
    [​IMG]

    The NLAW (above) is a much more capable piece of kit than the At4 (below). The top-attack mode delivers a shaped-charge through the roof of AFV, thus avoiding the traditionally heavier armoured aspects. I believe the rocket also has a limited guidance system - the operator tracks the target, and the rocket applies the correct ammount of lead.
    As the bumpf says, it can also be programmed in a direct-attack mode, which could be used for 'bunker-busting'.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. New infantry weapon to deliver a more precise capability
    6 Feb 06
    A £40m contract to deliver the Anti-Structures Munition, a new shoulder-launched weapon which will allow the British infantry to defeat hardened structures such as buildings or bunkers more precisely and safely, and without recourse to artillery or air support, has been awarded to Dynamit Nobel Defence, Minister for Defence Procurement Lord Drayson announced on 6 February 2006.

    Infantrymen taking part in the infantry weapon demonstrations held at Brecon Training Area. The new Anti-Structures Munition will add a potent new capability to the Infantry's arsenal.

    The Anti-Structures Munition does not replace a weapon system currently in service, but adds a potent new capability to the Infantry's arsenal, which has already been enhanced through programmes to provide night sights, under-slung grenade launchers and the state of the art SA80A2 assault rifle.

    Lord Drayson said:

    "I am pleased to announce the award of the contract for the demonstration and manufacture of the Anti-Structures Munition to Dynamit Nobel Defence. The contract is valued at £40m and includes provision of combat weapons, training systems and contractor logistic support for the first five years.

    "The Anti-Structures Munition will provide our Armed Forces with a new capability. It will enable our infantry to more precisely defeat hardened structures such as buildings or bunkers - improving the safety of UK forces, reducing the danger to civilians in the area and the damage caused to neighbouring buildings.

    "It is essential that we provide our Armed Forces with the tools they need to get the job done as safely, precisely and quickly as possible. This munition will help do just that."

    Dynamit Nobel Defence was selected following a rigorous competition which included full test firings of the weapon and soldier trials.

    The system is planned to be in service by the end of 2009.
     
  13. Hmm so NLAW, ILAW and MBTLAW are actually identical. The way that article sounds though, this antistructure munition will be a completely new weapon, not just another round/mode for an existing one. Although I'm sure this NLAW will be able to do the same job in its direct attack mode.

    The only thing I'd say about using NLAW for this, is like you said its a capable piece of antitank kit. That means money. Great if you need it to stop an MBT, but a bit wasted on a hole in the ground. Although if said bunker is slotting guys, frankly fcuk it, I'd use a Trident if I could.

    Also carrying a weapon around JUST for antistructure use is a bit inflexible ain't it. I know the Americans are developing a new type of automatic grenade launcher that can be carried by one man, it uses some fancy computing to allow the grenades to airburst or burst over walls or round corners, perhaps the MoD has got the idea of a specialised round for this weapon?

    How long will LAW94 last out for then? Until stocks dry up? Something about it and the AT4, maybe they aren't the best weapon to take on an MBT with but they are cheaper than the new LAWs and we have plenty right now, and thats just great for bunkers, whens the last time Al Qaeda or the Al Aqsa brigade or whoever had MBTs? So perhaps all stocks should be used up in the counterinsurgencies before we go onto more expensive tankbusting (but still anti bunker too) NLAWs.

    [​IMG]

    American Marines re-issue the old LAW66 for use in Iraq. They withdrew it originally because it wouldnt stop an MBT. Now of course we need a LAW that will stop an MBT. But in this Particular situ, do they care? No of course not, it is a cheap way of delivering a bang to Ahmed. And so we should get rid of LAW66s, LAW94s, AT4s, Charlie G's etc etc etc the same way before the new generation of ATk wpns come along.

    [​IMG]

    I also wanted to upload this pic from the antistructures news item. No actual new weapon to be seen. Just like the pic very much. Warry. Makes you want to shout SECTION 200 ENEMY SECTION BASE OF COPSE, RAPID! Gives me a bit of a semi.

    Gook