cached/copied 03-05-10 - for original link click
here
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/09/mrap-v-superbom/
MRAP V Superbomb: Round 2
By David Hambling
Danger
Room
-
Wired
Blogs:
"The new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles will not
provide protection against explosively-formed projectiles (EFP), the
roadside bombs that fire a high-velocity metal slug. So contractors are
already working on MRAP II, which will provide a much higher level of
protection against this sort of attack. But that doesn't necessarily
mean it's 'game over' for EFPs."
Iraqi insurgents have shown
themselves high adaptable. IED design has mutated rapidly, with a range
of techniques being used to stay ahead of bomb jammers. If MRAP II is
proof against existing EFPs, there are several routes the insurgents
might take to upgrade their bombs.
1) Enhanced design. Basic EFPs form a dish-shaped liner into a crude
metal slug. Sophisticated designs using supercomputer
modelling
can create a longer, more aerodynamic projectile with fins for greater
range. Another alternative is a design which produces of a 'stretching
rod' – the front is moving faster than the rear, so it stretches in
flight. With a greater length-to-diameter ratio, these rods have
shorter range but greater armor penetration.
Rating: Very unlikely without major outside assistance
2)
Enhanced material. Existing EFPs are made of copper; US weapon
designers also started with copper, but found that other, denser metals
can produce improved performance. A common material for US
weapons is the dense metal Tantalum, which will improve penetration
by about 35% for the same diameter EFP.
Rating: Very unlikely. Tantulum is much harder to obtain and work than
copper.
3)
Enhanced targeting. All vehicles have specific weak points. For
example, in Afghanistan Mujahideen learned to attack Soviet BMP armored
vehicles from behind – the rear doors
are hollow and contain fuel,
so a hit on them can destroy the vehicle. Careful positioning of EFPs
combined with more sophisticated triggering could take advantage of any
vulnerability in MRAP II.
Rating: Possible, but difficult.
4)
Bigger EFPs. Simply by making the EFP bigger its range and penetrating
power can be increased. Existing insurgent weapons seem to have a
diameter of around four inches and fire a slug weighing ounces. Larger
EFPs can be fabricated; those pictured are made by Defence Industries of Iran and
include
one
which
fires a nine-pound
slug
capable
of
piercing fourteen inches of armor.
Rating: Likely. Fabricating and positioning larger EFPs is more
challenging, but well within the capabilities of insurgents.
Such
a move would then be a new challenge to the makers of amored vehicles -
roll on MRAP III, or some EFP-defeating add-on. The arms race continues.
[bth:
therea are two other ways (1) targeting two EFPs at the same point in
space and (2) massively surging the number of EFPs from around 100-200
to 1000-2000 per month.]
|
