Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines book. Happy reading Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines Pocket Guide.

Other sensors and kill mechanisms in the U. The committee considered the following operational concepts as possible alternatives: on the ground; are frequently unavailable to small units. Use mechanical ground systems, such as trip flares and improvised noisemakers. Disadvantage: not linked to instantaneous lethal mechanisms. Disadvantages: not generally available at the small combat unit level; heavier than current APL; no delay; no enemy casualties without linked kill mechanisms.

Disadvantage: increased soldier vulnerability because reaction time can be dramatically slowed by incoming enemy fire, fatigue, weather, darkness, and other conditions. Employ animal systems, such as dogs or geese. Disadvantages: noisy; high logistical cost for animal support. Call upon airborne systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, joint surveillance target attack radar system JSTARS , and satellites.

Disadvantages: increased time between detection of an enemy and receipt of information by the unit. The commander on the ground is responsible for accomplishing the unit mission by ensuring that subordinate units or troops use all weapons in a way that exploits the unique conditions of enemy, terrain, weather, and light. A commander might tactically employ soldiers, sensors, weapons, and units in the following ways to provide similar advantages as APL:.

Use more forward reconnaissance e.


Disadvantages: requires additional military manpower; greater likelihood of high U. Use more soldiers, weapons, or units in a given battlefield area to increase firepower advantage on a given piece of terrain and increase the likelihood of slowing or defeating the enemy. The items in the containers would be tailored for local conditions and could include any combination of night-vision devices, ground sensors, Claymores, grenade launchers, machine guns, hand-held mortars, ammunition, and nonlethal munitions.

Disadvantages: uncertainty that container would be available when needed; additional training required to teach soldiers to use a range of sensors and weapons not normally available to them. For example, a dangerous enemy avenue into an advancing friendly force's flank could be closed with AT mines delivered remotely just prior to friendly force arrival.

This would minimize the enemy's ability to find the scattered minefield, and the passing friendly forces would be able to cover the minefield with realtime observation, direct fire, and indirect fire. Disadvantage: uncertainty that a dedicated delivery means, such as artillery, would be immediately available.

Employ remotely delivered AT mines in greater numbers, over greater areas, with more rapid reseeding rates. The larger the minefield the more difficult it may be for the enemy to bypass it going around a minefield is usually the simplest countermeasure but often leads to a kill zone ; a larger minefield is likely to require more time to breach with mine plows or more specialized armored breaching vehicles.

By reseeding existing AT minefields with additional remotely delivered AT mines, both mounted and dismounted breach attempts could be slowed as lanes thought to be passable would have to be recleared. Ideally, reseeding would be accomplished under real-time direction from a ground observer, a manned aircraft, or an unmanned aerial vehicle sensor. Otherwise, high-priority, remotely delivered minefields could be periodically reseeded as the tactical situation required.

Disadvantages: requires additional delivery means, mines, and military personnel. The effectiveness of any of the tactical approaches listed above would greatly depend on the mission, the situation, and the force structure. Furthermore, history has shown that when one side changes tactics, the other side makes counterchanges. On the battlefield, tactics evolve, sometimes radically. Even though APL are rarely decisive on the battlefield, they do provide a commander with one more capability to shape the battle space, tailor his tactics, and enhance the effects of other more decisive systems.

Therefore, the tactical approaches listed above might have a delaying effect but, either singly or in combination, they could not replicate the instantaneous lethality of APL on a precise point on the battlefield. Materiel alternatives to APL are likely to consist of a combination of sensor, communication links, and lethal or nonlethal munitions.

Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Anti-Personnel Landmines

The committee carefully evaluated technologies in each of these categories in terms of the fundamental problem of current mines—they cannot distinguish between friend and foe. In the committee's opinion, the development of long-lasting, accurate, all-weather capable, low-power ground sensors may be key to the creation of the most flexible and militarily effective alternatives to APL. APL have two missions—to kill dismounted targets and to protect AT mines from being breached; the latter is typically accomplished by mixed systems. An alternative to APL in these mixed systems could either 1 remove the APL and use only AT mines equipped with antihandling devices or 2 use other weapons designed for non-mine missions that.

For this reason, some of the alternatives considered are AT mines or weapons. Table shows existing systems that would be compliant with the Ottawa Convention. The table also describes their principal characteristics. Following the table are full descriptions of each alternative. The descriptions are followed by brief assessments and tables measuring alternatives are measured against the criteria described in Chapter 4.

The M18 series, or Claymore mine, is a nonself-destructing directional fragmentation mine detonated by grams of composition C4. The Claymore projects steel balls in a fan-shaped pattern in a 60 degree arc to a maximum height of 2 meters. The M18 can be activated in the commanddetonation mode by an electric blasting cap inserted into the detonator well. The mine body is nonmetallic, and the steel balls are cast in the same composition as the front part of the mine. The lethal radius extends to meters forward and 16 meters to the rear. Amended Protocol II to the CCW imposes some restrictions on the use of trip wires to detonate the Claymore; the Ottawa Convention prohibits the use of trip wires with all mines.

The command-detonated Claymore does not use a trip wire and is, therefore, permitted by both the CCW and the Ottawa Convention. Ottawa Compliant a. Volcano dispensers can be mounted on several tracked or wheeled vehicles or on the UH Blackhawk helicopter. The system is made up of the launcher rack and dispenser-control unit, vehicle-specific mounting hardware, and mine canisters, each of which holds six mines.

Biblioteca Digital - Universidad de Sonora

A completely loaded dispenser holds canisters, or mines. The mines are placed in a uniform density of approximately one mine per linear meter over a linear distance of one kilometer. Self-destruct times of 4 hours, 48 hours, or 15 days are set at launch time. The Volcano system can be used to emplace protective and tactical minefields anywhere on the battlefield reachable by the dispensing vehicles. Area-Denial Artillery Munition , but can also be used alone. Each mine in the projectile is a right-circular cylinder, RAAMS have factory-set self-destruct times of either 4 or 48 hours. About 20 percent have an antihandling feature that causes them to explode when tilted at an angle of 17 degrees or more.

They are designed to destroy mounted targets by perforating the underside of the vehicle. The mines have magnetic-influence fuzes designed to stop mounted vehicles when they are detonated, as intended, between the tracks; if they are detonated directly under a track, they may not stop the vehicle. It weighs about 16 kilograms, is about 36 centimeters high and about 23 centimeters in diameter.

After it is emplaced and armed, seismic sensors can detect movement and alert the mine to turn on its acoustic sensors that detect and classify a target. If an armored target approaches within meters, a small submunition with an infrared sensor is launched over the target and fires an explosively formed projectile down into the engine compartment. It has an antihandling feature that causes the mine to detonate when disturbed.

Subsequent evolutions of requirements and the exigencies of the development program have precluded these options. Called to the attention of the committee by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, the Maverick AGM is a tactical guided missile designed for close air support, interdiction, and defense suppression Deagle, Maverick provides stand-off capability and has a high probability of striking a wide range of tactical targets, including armor, air defenses, ships, transportation equipment, and fuel storage facilities.

Because Maverick has a modular design, different combinations of guidance packages and warheads can be attached to the rocket motor section to produce different weapons. Maverick has three different seekers and two different warheads. The solid-rocket motor propulsion section is common to all variants. The seeker options are electrooptical imaging, infrared imaging, or a laser guidance package. The warhead, either a A contact fuze in the nose fires the shaped-charge warhead.

The penetrator uses a delayed fuze, allowing the warhead to penetrate the target by kinetic energy before firing, which is very effective against large, hard targets. Maverick has a cylindrical body with long-chord delta wings and tail control surfaces mounted close to the trailing edge of the wing of the aircraft using it. Mavericks can be launched from high altitudes to tree top level.

The A, FE, and F aircraft can carry as many as six Mavericks allowing the pilot to engage several targets on one mission. Tactical employment of Maverick is fully covered in doctrinal manuals. This weapon is in production and requires no further research and development. Can destroy targets from a stand-off platform, which has a psychological impact on an enemy force. Requires an expensive, complicated launch platform fixed-wing tactical aircraft. Uncertainty about the launch platform's ability to support additional tactical missions.

Called to the attention of the committee by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, the Longbow Hellfire air-to-ground missile AGM can engage both moving and stationary vehicles and provide an adverse-weather,. The Longbow program also includes a fire-control radar system and numerous modifications to the helicopter. The fire-control radar system can locate, classify, and prioritize targets for the Longbow Hellfire missile.

The first three generations of Hellfire missiles use a laser seeker. The fourth generation, Longbow Hellfire, is a fire-and-forget version that uses an active radio-frequency seeker operating in the millimeter-wave frequency band and has a dual tandem warhead designed to defeat reactive armor.

Integration of the Longbow into the entire fleet of Apache attack helicopters and into one-third of the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter fleet is planned. Tactical employment is fully covered by doctrinal manuals. Research and development of this program is supported and funded as an Army missile program.

In , the international outcry led to the Ottawa Convention, which was signed or agreed to by nations, but thus far not by China, Israel, Russia, Turkey, the United States, and several other countries. The convention bans the use of all antipersonnel landmines, which are defined as mines that explode "by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person.

The United States also assists in demining efforts and provides aid to victims of antipersonnel landmines. Most significantly, the U.

  • ActualTests Cisco Unity Design And Networking CUDN Exam 642071.
  • Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines;
  • A Taint in the Blood (Kate Shugak, Book 14).
  • Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate;
  • Sexual Healing for Three [The Matchmaker 5] (Siren Publishing Menage Amour).
  • Landmines: Background and Congressional Concerns.
  • A Historical Overview of the Legal Regulation of Anti-Personnel Mines.

Nevertheless, they still are not Ottawa-compliant because they explode on contact with a person and do not discriminate between friend and foe. The Clinton administration indicated that the United States would be willing to sign the Ottawa Convention in if alternatives could be fielded to soldiers by that time. He instructed the U. Department of Defense DOD to begin developing alternatives that would serve similar functions, which are considered essential to U. DOD responded by initiating a series of projects and studies-referred to as tracks-to identify alternatives.

Track I, led by the U. Army, has investigated alternatives to the nonself-destructing mines used in Korea and proposed the production of a Remote Area-Denial Artillery Munition, or RADAM a weapon that combines two existing mine systems into one munition. The focus of Track III is on new or existing technologies that would provide capabilities equivalent to those of antipersonnel landmines when used alone or in mixed systems with antitank mines.