Fascinating water-based IED disruptor

#1
Interesting stuff...

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/fluid-blade-disablement-tool/

YouTube - Water Disruptor

The portable clear plastic device is filled with water and an explosive material is placed in it that, when detonated, creates a shock wave that travels through the water and accelerates it inward into a concave opening, Todd said. Therefore, when the water collides, it produces a thin blade.

“That allows you to have a high-speed, very precise water blade to go through and do precision type of destruction on whatever improvised explosive device it’s going up against. Immediately behind the precision water blade is a water slug, which performs a general disruption that tears everything apart,” Todd said.
 
#5
Old hat I'm afraid - was trialling something similar 15 years ago.
Ahh the joys of "hub Kep!"

I think I was the first to use one of them in anger (at least in its RARDEised form..)
 
#6
Did your trials involve a soldier-portable, compact weaponised version, or did they use a mechanical compressor?

Is the main problem in Afghanistan detecting IEDs, rather than defeating them?
Depends what you mean by defeat, but yes, finding them (in a timely and safe manner) is generally considered the most technically challenging bit.

And if Richard North or his cronies suggest that the Husky mine detection system is the answer, they should be slapped with a large wet haddock.
 
#7
I thought the guy that’s on Discovery developed and patented this sort of thing? His name escapes me at the moment but I do remember a programme with him demonstrating it on a VBIED.
 
#9
Sidney Alford, madder than a box of frogs; Explosives.net
Not bloody Catweazle!, never invented anything in his life (although to be fair he is/was excellent at packaging and selling stuff to folk with large expense accounts, and getting his mug on the box..)!

Nah, the first I saw the HE + water trick done was by the Rhodesians in the late 70's - det cord + VW hubcap + bucket of water - worked a treat!
 
#11
Didn't the "wheelbarrow" needle do something similar?

Most of the Wheelbarrow disruptors did something similar:excited: Some were slightly more violent than others. And they were in use long before people thought they were. The RN used water shots to remove limpet mines from ships.

Oh and Sydney Alford is so fill of shit you would need a real wheelbarrow to move him around.:judge: Use of Magnesium as a shaped charge liner - on a 155mm carrier shell FFS.
 
#12
Did your trials involve a soldier-portable, compact weaponised version, or did they use a mechanical compressor?

Is the main problem in Afghanistan detecting IEDs, rather than defeating them?
Yes - most disruptors are man portable - try walking through a foot of mud in some shit hole in NI (or anywhere else for that matter) because your remote means is up to its battery box in shyte carrying 40 lbs of offset weight in front of you wearing a bomb suit :).

One of the disruptors weighed less than 1 Kg but 'nuff said on further technical details.
 
#14
Magnesium as a SC liner is a good way to get behind target pyrophoricity, something lacking in copper liners. Horses for courses.
You what? You mean set it alight mate?

Never had a problem doing that with copper meself..

If RM considers a magnesium liner to be "inappropriate" for cracking a carrier shell, then I know whose opinion I would back! He has probably done more of these than anyone on the planet..
 
#15
You what? You mean set it alight mate?
Yeppers.

Never had a problem doing that with copper meself..
But copper as a metal is not particularly flammable. Once you get a bit of magnesium burning all you can do is pretty much stand back and watch. The metal is so reactive it burns in water and even nitrogen.

If RM considers a magnesium liner to be "inappropriate" for cracking a carrier shell, then I know whose opinion I would back! He has probably done more of these than anyone on the planet..
Of course! I too would defer to RM's experience under the circumstances. But I was just suggesting there may be other reasons why one might want to use a magnesium liner despite its lower density and ductility (hence penetration efficiency) than copper.

IIRC aluminium is used as a liner in Maverick missiles. It is denser than magnesium but also pyrophoric. If the Americans wanted pure penetration efficiency they could have gone with copper, so they had their reasons for going with aluminium.
 
#16
Sidney Alford, madder than a box of frogs; Explosives.net
Thats the badger, madder than a box of frogs blank nastied to another box of frogs.

Never really understood how he gets an explosives licence clearly mad, but also clearly from a time when health and safety was known as Darwins theory.

Patents a strange thing it may just have been the plastic box you filled with water but, hey can't blame the guy for selling it
 
#17
IIRC aluminium is used as a liner in Maverick missiles. It is denser than magnesium but also pyrophoric. If the Americans wanted pure penetration efficiency they could have gone with copper, so they had their reasons for going with aluminium.
Aluminium is known to have better concrete penetrating properties and this may have been the reason to use it on some Maverick variants (particularly the anti-structure/fortification missiles).
 
#18
Yeppers.



But copper as a metal is not particularly flammable. Once you get a bit of magnesium burning all you can do is pretty much stand back and watch. The metal is so reactive it burns in water and even nitrogen.



Of course! I too would defer to RM's experience under the circumstances. But I was just suggesting there may be other reasons why one might want to use a magnesium liner despite its lower density and ductility (hence penetration efficiency) than copper.

IIRC aluminium is used as a liner in Maverick missiles. It is denser than magnesium but also pyrophoric. If the Americans wanted pure penetration efficiency they could have gone with copper, so they had their reasons for going with aluminium.
Aluminium is used for several reasons. It is more penetrative in concrete; it is cheaper and less of a strategic material than copper hence its use in many Warsaw Pact RPG variants and it is indeed pyrophoric hence its use in the BLOWPIPE AA missile system which had a shallow angle shaped charge.

However the behind-shell effects on a filled shell or indeed behind armour, are irrelevant - deflagration takes place in any event (most of the time - sometimes it get a little more violent than desireable.) Behind armour, spalling is the killer and deflagration a very poor secondary effect. The pyrophoric effect is also overrated in the use of DU - it does occur but all that metal being pushed aside by the penetrator has to go somewhere - inside - as does the penetrator. As an aside DU is also used because of its self-sharpening properties (adiabatic shear banding) and its density - hence its use in armour plate

Indeed the use of other materials is well documented; Charge Demolition No 11 30 lb had a brass liner and was specifically designed as a nested charge i.e. you could fit one on top of the other and IIRC penetration went from 1.2m of RC to 1.6m but didn't go up much after that i.e. 3 was a waste of 1. The brass was also less of a strategic material and copper

More exotic materials have also been tetsed including DU and Molybdenum.

And Alford is till a bullshitter:nod:
 
#19
Aluminium is used for several reasons. It is more penetrative in concrete; it is cheaper and less of a strategic material than copper hence its use in many Warsaw Pact RPG variants and it is indeed pyrophoric hence its use in the BLOWPIPE AA missile system which had a shallow angle shaped charge.
From the abstract of this article:
SpringerLink - Acta Mechanica Sinica, Volume 24, Number 3

And it seems that Al liners are less penetrative than copper, but leave wider penetration channels. I can understand this on the basis that for the same SC jet geometry, Al has less forward mass hence momentum, and therefore decelerates faster and disperses laterally quickly. This makes Al liners suitable for tandem charge warheads.

However the behind-shell effects on a filled shell or indeed behind armour, are irrelevant - deflagration takes place in any event (most of the time - sometimes it get a little more violent than desireable.) Behind armour, spalling is the killer and deflagration a very poor secondary effect.
But with spall liners made out of Spectra (effectively paraffin wax, but much longer molecular chains) if you can overcome the activation energy to start it burning, it is actually quite an energetic fuel. Kevlar spall liners are less flammable and have a higher melting point.

The pyrophoric effect is also overrated in the use of DU - it does occur but all that metal being pushed aside by the penetrator has to go somewhere - inside - as does the penetrator. As an aside DU is also used because of its self-sharpening properties (adiabatic shear banding) and its density - hence its use in armour plate
Yup.

Indeed the use of other materials is well documented; Charge Demolition No 11 30 lb had a brass liner and was specifically designed as a nested charge i.e. you could fit one on top of the other and IIRC penetration went from 1.2m of RC to 1.6m but didn't go up much after that i.e. 3 was a waste of 1. The brass was also less of a strategic material and copper
That's very interesting. I have been wondering why people don't have triple (or more) SC warheads and tandem seems to be the limit of dedicated AP ordnance. Do you have a reference for me to read up on why you get very diminishing returns after two warheads?

I've been thinking about how to penetrate very deeply buried targets. I think I have an idea that doesn't use tandem warheads...

More exotic materials have also been tetsed including DU and Molybdenum.
What is more interesting though, is if we move away from the realm of consolidated metals, to powered metal jets. IOW the cone is made out of an unconsolidated material consisting of, e.g. tungsten powder + a soft wax binder. Some research indicates that PMJs have better penetration than solid MJs but are very sensitive to the charge standoff, e.g.

ScienceDirect - International Journal of Impact Engineering : Theoretical considerations on the penetration of powdered metal jets

I can forward a copy to you if you want. As an independent scientist I don't have an institutional subscription and I know these articles cost a lot to download.
 
#20
From the abstract of this article:
SpringerLink - Acta Mechanica Sinica, Volume 24, Number 3

And it seems that Al liners are less penetrative than copper, but leave wider penetration channels. I can understand this on the basis that for the same SC jet geometry, Al has less forward mass hence momentum, and therefore decelerates faster and disperses laterally quickly. This makes Al liners suitable for tandem charge warheads.



But with spall liners made out of Spectra (effectively paraffin wax, but much longer molecular chains) if you can overcome the activation energy to start it burning, it is actually quite an energetic fuel. Kevlar spall liners are less flammable and have a higher melting point.



Yup.



That's very interesting. I have been wondering why people don't have triple (or more) SC warheads and tandem seems to be the limit of dedicated AP ordnance. Do you have a reference for me to read up on why you get very diminishing returns after two warheads?

I've been thinking about how to penetrate very deeply buried targets. I think I have an idea that doesn't use tandem warheads...



What is more interesting though, is if we move away from the realm of consolidated metals, to powered metal jets. IOW the cone is made out of an unconsolidated material consisting of, e.g. tungsten powder + a soft wax binder. Some research indicates that PMJs have better penetration than solid MJs but are very sensitive to the charge standoff, e.g.

ScienceDirect - International Journal of Impact Engineering : Theoretical considerations on the penetration of powdered metal jets

I can forward a copy to you if you want. As an independent scientist I don't have an institutional subscription and I know these articles cost a lot to download.

Hmmm civvy scientist with no experience of the real world methinks. Very clever but a ******* moron when it comes to real life!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top