EOD RESPONSE W
ith the ever growing threat of terrorists using chemical or biological weapons as a means of enhanced terror attack,
most countries that consider themselves at risk from high-level extremist attack are expending a vast amount of eff ort on stopping this diabolical menace. Some- times, however, there is a failure within the system and improvised CB devices are successfully delivered to the target. This resulting threat to life and
property has led many countries to specially train, to a very high level, selected bomb disposal offi cers to operate in this hazardous scenario over and above more conventional EOD/CIED (Explosives Ordnance Disposal/Counter- IED) duties. If the device does not manifest itself by functioning, which is always a probable scenario, then these specially trained operators are called upon to apply their very special training to prevent disaster at almost any cost.
The challenge of the CBRN IED Many conventional IEDD (Improvised Explosive Device Disposal) techniques are not really applicable if the operator does not want to achieve the terrorist’s goal of the device functioning - and these IEDD procedures include conventional disruption or explosive means that are employed daily around the world. Therefore a host of new techniques and operational tactics have been developed by counties which are suitable to their concept of operations. One such means is very surgical attack using disruptors to remove or precisely destroy the components of an IED - which tend to be the power supply, initiator, sensors and many other items - by either robotic means or manual approach by an operator in a bomb suit, with CRBN protection. What a fun job! However, such EOD/CIED operations
become very complex and require integration of not only many human assets, but also of operational integration of many diff erent equipment assets. On the human side, vast amounts of manpower could be needed to evacuate and create a large exclusion zone, crowd control and potential decontamination.
Shooting the bomb For the equipment side, does the scenario make it possible to use a robot, and if so, is the robot capable of aiming a disruptor to take a surgical shot to disrupt – extremely precisely – a specifi c part of the innards of the IED? If no robotic option is possible then protection of the
operator with not only his ballistic protection, but also CBRN protection, is required and can dramatically increase the fatigue levels and thus require more operators to be available. Other questions arise when dealing with a CBR device. Does the available X-ray equipment on the robot provide enough detailed intelligence for the disruptor to be set for its surgical shot or even shots? It may be desirable for ballistic and chemical decontaminants, probably foam based, to be used around the device, prior to disruption. Can the disruptor be aimed before or aſt er this is in place? Is the disruptor proven to be safe in such an environment? The Proparms 12.5mm Recoilless
system has been tested within blast containment tents and proven not to break this critical protection. However if the device is covered in foam decontami- nant prior to attempting disruption, how will you know if you were successful in rendering it safe? What are the current and predicted weather conditions impinging in the risk assessment of potential contaminated areas if the device does function – that, is, blow up - when disruption is attempted? So the whole task becomes signifi - cantly more complex and labour-inten- sive than just a simple pipe bomb, which fully justifi es the selection, training and continual practical testing of the specially selected operators. In addition
to training the bomb techs on the ground, the training for all levels of response is needed to ensure a completely seamless and well-practiced total response. There can never be a common approach to the problem in part due to diff ering national strategies and equipments, as well as the simple fact that every scenario will be diff erent.
Surgical precision The Proparms 12.5mm RC system has been deployed in many countries to provide this surgical attack option and off ers the capability to remove a single component, such as a battery or electronic component from a PCB (printed circuit board), with very minimal risk of collateral damage to the weapon and thus avoiding achieving the terrorist’s goal of fully detonating its main charge. There is a massive caveat that must be recognized when considering using a disruptor in conventional water shot to deal with such a device. The eff ect of water used in a disruptor on a target is destructive, but is not surgical as in normal circumstances required for more conventional IEDD operations. This has resulted in the development
of special ammunition loads along with special solid and frangible projectiles in disruptors to achieve the surgical nature of attack required in such highly technical scenarios - and thus allowing the exact removal of a component or components without compromising or setting off the main warhead load. Such technics of employment are well known in principle, but the precise national methodology of usage is correctly classifi ed. Continuing development against the
advancing threat continues in many countries at government level with the support and back-up of C-IED equipment design and manufacturing authori- ties. The aim is, as always, to give the
The Proparms 20mm Recoilless MK111
Disrupter is 98% recoilless and 4.9 kg ready to fi re. The lack of recoil minimizes damage to the mechanics on robotic platforms.
dedicated professional users the tools that may be needed to keep one step ahead. It remains an unanswered question as to which side of the fence is deploying its R and D resources most eff ectively. Hopefully it’s the good guys - but in the climate of ever-shrinking government budgets the jury may still be deliberating this point for years to come. ❚❙
Lesley Rust is President and CEO of Proparms Limited, which has special- ized in the development of Waterjet Disrupters for EOD for over 30 years.
CBNW 2013/01 53
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80