Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Hardware Hacking Toys Science

DIY Ordnance Disposal With An RC Truck 267

Posted by timothy from the cots-isn't-just-a-funny-bed dept.
kpw10 writes "My company, Tackle Design, put together a do it yourself ordnance disposal robot for use by one of the partners in our company, currently serving in Iraq. It is a very simple solution costing only about $1,000, but it performs the same functions as the super-expensive robots issued by the military. We looking to see if we can get more of these devices over there - particularly as the treat of IEDs seems to be on the rise. We're also looking into including more advanced cameras and other types of sensors including explosives detectors (MEMS and SAW based) as well as RF detectors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DIY Ordnance Disposal With An RC Truck More

DIY Ordnance Disposal With An RC Truck

Comments Filter:

  • Treat? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tethys_was_taken ( 813654 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:26AM (#10941272) Homepage
    I didn't know that IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) were a treat. How did they taste?

    • Re:Treat? (Score:2, Funny)

      by oexeo ( 816786 )
      I haven't RTFS, or RTFA. But, to answer your question; they taste esquisite.
    • Amazing the difference of a single letter (threat versus treat). Also amazing that I spend more time reading the headlines than the editors spend writing them (grrrrrr.....).

      Oh well. Slashdot is still worth twice the prize!

  • Hardly Special (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RobertTaylor ( 444958 ) <roberttaylor1234 ... m ['il.' in gap]> on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:27AM (#10941274) Homepage Journal
    RC Car + Wireless Camera?

    Whats the groundbreaking part of this? That they shipped it to Iraq!?
    • It is a very simple solution costing only about $1,000, but it performs the same functions as the super-expensive robots issued by the military.
      Perhaps not that innovative, but sure as hell cheaper.
      • Indeed.

        Approaching a problem from a "as cheap as possible" DYI angle will often lead to technological improvements, too. If you're on a budget you tend to make sure things just work and in order for them to just work (ie. not break) you have to keep things simple.

        After watching last week's "CSI: New York" episode (click here for a synopsis [tvtome.com]), I was pretty impressed with the idea of having a robot lift prints from an explosive ordinance before detonating it. Turns out that robot really exists [www.cbc.ca] and was bui

    • Re:Hardly Special (Score:5, Funny)

      by EvilGrin666 ( 457869 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:31AM (#10941292) Homepage
      That they are driving around mine-fields? I bet thats pretty groundbreaking..

  • Isn't that spelled "ordnance" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige ( 807773 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:27AM (#10941276) Homepage Journal
    Well?

  • Knight Rider! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaneelGiskard ( 222145 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:27AM (#10941277) Homepage
    Anyone else had to immediately think of that truck in Knight Rider (I think it was called Goliath) when he read the headline? :-)

  • Rado and explosives.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sir.Cracked ( 140212 ) * on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:27AM (#10941278) Homepage
    The first glaring problem with this is the use of a radio controled device in close proximity to ordinance. One of the first things they tell you, and continue to repeatedly tell you, about situations with IED's and UXO's (Unexploded Ordinance) is NOT to use any radios or electrical devices for an area around them. Presumably these "overly expensive" robots used by the experts are not just expensive for kicks, but, among other things, have sheilding and control systems to counter this danger.

    A do it yourself aproach is admirable in a lot of situations, however, when dealing with military and terrorist style explosives, It seems doubtful that's the time to employ the pioneering spirit. The EOD guys are there for a reason, and this is one case where patience is a virtue.

    • However, it would take a lot of $1000 robots getting blown up before you could justify one of the higher-priced ones...presumably they get humans out of the area first? (Of course, in situations that that wouldn't be possible, you would still require the one with the highest probability of success, but for your average poking at garbage piles to see if they blow up this seems to make sense.)

      • I'm pretty sure that in situations where they just want to blow it up (few, if they value the buildings at all) they can just chuck a long-fused grenade in the room and head for the hills. But, in modern explosives, it doesn't take much to bring down a city block, so presumably they don't just want to set it off and gamble that the bomb-maker doesn't know a detonator from a doorknob.

    • Re:Rado and explosives.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by nagora ( 177841 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:42AM (#10941322)
      NOT to use any radios or electrical devices for an area around them.

      I see a vision of robots...BIG steam driven robots guided by reins and a team of engineers with theodolites. I call this creation "Sergent Bhrama".

      Bloody hell, where'd I leave me pills?

      TWW

    • Re:Rado and explosives.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by pyat ( 303115 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:42AM (#10941323) Journal
      The point is valid, but in some situations this may not be such a big problem.

      Reading the article, the intention of the designers is to come up with a robot that will drop some explosives on an enemy's bomb/mine so as to destroy it. Before doing this, everybody will have to have "retired to a safe distance", at which point it might not matter so much whether an electromagnetic transmission/lump of C-4 does the detonating.

      However, your point still stands in so far as an unpredictable detonation due to stray radio waves gives you less control of the situation than would a more controlled explosive intervention.


      • Seing as most IED designs rely on readily available and somewhat volatile substances, surely it would be cheaper and quicker to retire to a safe distance and pummel the IED with a rifle?

        I'd expect the energy of a rifle-round hitting a volatile IED would be sufficient to trigger it, if not, tracer could be tried for flame ignition.

        Of course, line-of-sight wouldn't always be available and that is where you could use one of these radio control cars for sympathetic detonation.
        • You're not trying to detonate it, you're trying to blow it up, which is not the same thing.
          • My point is still the same on that.

            If you were to try to *destroy* an IED with an explosive device, you'd probably just cause sympathetic detonation due to the volatility of the substances (This isn't refined plastic explosives).

            Also, attempting to seperate detonator and charge would be likely impossible with what is essentially a crued toy car.

            So you'd probably still be better off firing a rifle at it.
        • Many IEDs in Iraq are manufactured out of old artillery shells (the country is awash in them). They're readily available, have fusing apparatus already attached, and have a frangible metal shell that produces plenty of shrapnel. As a bonus, They're relatively safe to handle, and even rookie terrorists can drop one next to a roadway and run.

          Why bother with something volatile or percussion sensitive? Nitro? Picrates? You'd kill more of your buddies handling that stuff than you would kill intended target
      • If low power radio transmissions were so effective at blowing up these devices, why don't they just add a radio transmitter to the truck and drive it through the mine fields? Hell, climb into a foxhole and turn on a high power tranmitter before for a minute before you drive this thing around.

        And the devices they are talking about are anti-personnel mines and the like. They don't have a huge range.

    • Re:Rado and explosives.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:48AM (#10941338) Homepage
      In peacetime you can call the EOD detachment and wait for them to come and deal with the device. During a war, you may not have that luxury. You deal with the situation as best you can, given the available resources.

      A control and telemetry RF link is unlikely to cause an accidental detonation if the power is kept reasonably low.

      What I would like would be a disposable RC car and hand grenade that could be driven next to the device and detonated, to either disrupt the device or detonate it in place.

    • The first glaring problem with this is the use of a radio controled device in close proximity to ordinance.

      Yes. But there are many work arounds such as adding shielding and making the device wireguided (or fiber). The umbilical would be a disadvantage and necessitate a stronger motor, but the weight and other limitations of a battery can be eliminated. That's more expense, but still probably less than their competitors.

      An umbilical could also be used to winch the unit back out of trouble.

      Another sh

    • Hm, you have a point. Maybe they're using the older Remote Control styled cars with a really loooooong cable from the control to the robot?

      Would be interesting to make it two that could couple together, one carrying the expensive instrumentation that could then drive away before the other half tries anything that might blow it up...

  • $1000 for them (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:27AM (#10941279)
    and $1 million in bribes to the department of defence to get them to actually buy the things.
    • Not necessarily. Just enough jobs in the more influential congressional districts... or, tell them that it also pumps oil and has a WMD locator built into the remote control.
  • IEDs really are a treat aren't they? I love it when I find one in my garden...

  • s/din/dn/ (Score:5, Informative)

    by Z-MaxX ( 712880 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:30AM (#10941284) Journal
    I think they mean ordnance [reference.com], not ordinance [reference.com]. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine, along with affect/effect, its/it's, etc.
    • I don't know about you, but I'd love to learn how to get rid of various government regulations with an RC truck. I figure you can filibuster with good enough batteries, but how to get rid of them is another matter.
      • You need to have large enough batteries to put the shocks into the politicians. :)
      • That's the difference between America and Iraq. In Iraq, if an american uses an RC truck to get rid of a, uhm, "pest", it's known as 'counter insurgency'. If the same person does that in Washington, it's 'terrorism'.

    • Re:s/din/dn/ (Score:2, Insightful)

      by empaler ( 130732 )
      No reason to apologize for wanting proper language.

    • Re:s/din/dn/ (Score:3, Funny)

      by oexeo ( 816786 )
      I think they mean ordnance, not ordinance. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine, along with affect/effect, its/it's, etc.

      I agree. Discussing military ordinance on /. must really take it's affect on you.

    • "Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine, along with affect/effect, its/it's, etc."

      And for that, you deserve a place on my friends list.

  • IEDs the San Francisco treat!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:41AM (#10941321)
    uh - no, that's Rice-a-Roni [straightdope.com] isn't it?

    I forgot rice doesn't explode. Sorry.

  • milspec requirements (Score:5, Informative)

    by bm17 ( 834529 ) * <brm@yoyodyne.com> on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:44AM (#10941325)
    It needs to be milspec in order for the military to use it, especially in a combat situation. It will take you a long long time to get this device approved and assigned a milspec number. I mean, like, years. I really hope the war is over before then. But it looks like Bush will just start up another war, so you may be in luck.

    Also, the military generally only does business with military contractors. This is starting to change, at least in principal. There has been a recent push for COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) purchases, to save money, but there is still a huge amount of paperwork and bureaucracy to deal with. They are going to have to take your robot and freeze it, bake it, irradiate it, EMP it, and maybe even shoot at it. All at great taxpayer expense.

    I salute you and your idea, but you should be forewarned about the effort involved. Also, my experience with this is limited. My close friend designed a rebreather that was almost assigned a milspec number by the US Navy. After several years and millions of dollars in testing and a final report approving the rebreather, the navy decided to stick with it's current model. I suspect this had something to do with internal politics that I should not even speculate on. Basically, my friend had put two years of his life into this, had a better machine which outperformed and way underpriced the competition, was one signature away from a milspec number assignment, and suddenly he got the silent treatment.

    So, basically, I'm saying Be prepared for a lot of red tape. Oh, and you may need to be ISO 9001 certified. Which is basically another form of red tape.
    • It needs to be milspec in order for the military to use it, especially in a combat situation... Also, the military generally only does business with military contractors.... They are going to have to take your robot and freeze it, bake it, irradiate it, EMP it, and maybe even shoot at it. All at great taxpayer expense.

      I wonder if they did all that to the bulletproof jackets parents are shipping their kids because there (allegedly) aren't enough in the field to go around?

    • That wouldn't be the Inspiration would it?
  • Isn't that going to piss off my city council, though? I mean, they seem to work so hard passing the things in the first place...

  • Cool (Score:2, Insightful)

    by paxil ( 99137 )
    I really enjoyed reading this advertisement.

  • Depressing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pyat ( 303115 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:51AM (#10941342) Journal
    Does anyone else find it depressing that US services personnel seem to be increasingly buying their own equipment?

    I had already heard stories of soldiers' families investing in flak-jackets/body armour to give them additional protection, and i believe i recall even from Gulf War I that soldiers were bringing their own GPS kit.

    Now they're putting together their own, affordable, bomb-disposal robots. I admire the initiative, but deplore the circumstances that make it necessary. Especially since the fact that a soldier/marine and his/her family can invest in the equipment means it is relatively inexpensive. If many soldiers buy it, it's *probably* useful too. So how come the government doesn't provide it?

    Putting on a cynicism hat, i wonder if it is because they'd rather spend high-margin-megabucks on a few robots from InsertHugeSupplierHere, than divert a fraction of that to buy larger volume cheaper alternatives.

    • Re:Depressing (Score:5, Informative)

      by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @05:49AM (#10941472) Journal
      Does anyone else find it depressing that US services personnel seem to be increasingly buying their own equipment?

      I find it rather refreshing, actually. Can you imagine how long the testing and approvals process would be to introduce anything of use on the battlefield? And how many taxpayer dollars would be used to do it? Remember, everything has to be bid on (well, almost everything). And for an individual soldier to justify having to get different equipment in a system designed to supply the same thing to pretty much everyone is a daunting thought.

      I'd rather just give my tax money over to the soldiers [adoptasniper.org], and have them spend it on what they need (whether it be Jolly Rancher hard candies, or Level IV body armor.) I imagine they can BUY better rifles as citizens from private dealers here in the states, than they get issued. There are exceptions to this of course - places like New Jersy, Massachussets, and New York, where the government has decided that citizens cannot be trusted to arm themselves. The People's Republic of California has publicly declared sniper/hunter/target shooter types unwelcome here, and come Jan 1st, 2005, rifles chambering .50 BMG here will be classified as "assault weapons" and subject to ban/registration/confiscation/destruction, thanks to our overzealous Citizen's Protection Committee in Sacramento.

      Pretty much anywhere else in the country, you can pick up tuned rifles chambering .50BMG, Nato 5.56mm, and accessories for both. Magazine shortages? With the expiration of the infamously ineffective Assault Weapons Ban, NEW 30 round magazines are available for cheap (30 round mags were always available, even during the ban, but were slightly more expensive than market prices would dictate in absence of the ban on new manufacture for civilian use.)

      Keep in mind that for regular army troops, the US already provides a mind-boggling array of equipment that nobody else in the world issues to average troops (as opposed to elite assault units.) GPS, night vision, aimpoint scopes, etc. This has its own logistical supply issues of course (ie, having to haul batteries of several different types).

      i recall even from Gulf War I that soldiers were bringing their own GPS kit.

      There weren't enough of the military descrambling GPS receivers to go around (again, a logistical issue, not necessarialy a money issue). They got around this by turning off the selective degradation provided for civilian use (now off by default) and just buying truckloads of off the shelf civilian receivers. With the degradation off in that area, soldiers who didn't want to wait for the new units to percolate through the supply chain probably opted just to buy their own. Logistics (and prioritization) again.
      • The People's Republic of California has publicly declared sniper/hunter/target shooter types unwelcome here, and come Jan 1st, 2005, rifles chambering .50 BMG here will be classified as "assault weapons" and subject to ban/registration/confiscation/destruction, thanks to our overzealous Citizen's Protection Committee in Sacramento.

        So for them to be of any 'good', would they allow small nuclear devices?
        Or MRLS?
        What about small anti aircraft rockets?

        I mean... Come on. Who knows what the thieves will think
      • I doubt whether this is a good idea for general use. Guns don't like sand and require frequent maintenance in the desert. The standard military issue stuff may work but most importantly there is a long supply chain of spare parts. Same goes for any piece of kit where the military has a good supply.

        The case proposed here of a UXO disposal robot is rather different, it is something that may breakdown but if it is cheap enough to throw away when a bomb goes off and a soldier's life is saved, then wtf, go for

    • InsertHugeSupplierHere
      I'm sorry, but you specified one too many H's, one too few L's, no A, no B, an extra couple of R's, an extra i, an extra U, and you left out the O. Also, neither S, E, G, or P appear in "Halliburton."

      We congratulate you on supplying the correct number of T and N, though; you got that part right, and that's good enough for government work. Would you like a Sweet No-Bid Contract?
    • Now they're putting together their own, affordable, bomb-disposal robots. I admire the initiative, but deplore the circumstances that make it necessary. Especially since the fact that a soldier/marine and his/her family can invest in the equipment means it is relatively inexpensive. If many soldiers buy it, it's *probably* useful too. So how come the government doesn't provide it?

      It's probably because they are trying to figure out which campaign contributor should get the multi billion $ contract. It is r
    • Nothing new. During the Civil War, small units of the Union Army bought Spencer repeating rifles with their own money. Some units had them supplied by wealthy company commanders.

      In the much poorer South, enlistees often brought their own weapon. This resulted in many start up units having a mix of shotguns, flintlock rifles, and more modern weapons. Retreating Union Armies then supplied the South with better weapons.

  • maybe a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:52AM (#10941344)
    What happens when the bad guys read slashdot and decide to make a jammer for the little remote controlled toy? Loose lips sink ships.
  • I cannot believe how stupid these guys are.

    They are using wireless communications and unshielded electronics near suspected bomb devices. Bombs that are set off wirelessly.

    A more serious concern is their DIY approach to bomb disposal. Do they really want to risk death or courtmartial for DIY? If they see a suspect device, then they should call the professionals in.
    • I cannot believe how stupid these guys are.

      They are using wireless communications and unshielded electronics near suspected bomb devices. Bombs that are set off wirelessly.

      And if the bomb goes off, so what? The whole idea is that they stay at safe distance while the robot dumps C4 on the device. Sure, a few robots may get blown up, but since the robots are now $1k instead of $250k (and there when you need them) I think the troops feel ok about it.

    • Re:Incredible stupidity (Score:5, Informative)

      by bm17 ( 834529 ) * <brm@yoyodyne.com> on Monday November 29, 2004 @05:19AM (#10941401)
      This is one of the reasons that there is so much milspec testing (and hence the $500 hammers). I mentioned in another post that my friend had developed a rebreather for military use (http://www.steammachines.com/aa1-Testing.asp [steammachines.com]). One of the primary uses of a military rebreather is to defuse underwater mines. Originally we sent in SCUBA divers to defuse mines. Then the soviets started adding audio sensors to listen for bubbles. After a few SEALs got blown up the navy added more requirements to the mission gear, and more testing, and we started sending in rebreathers, which are silent. Then the soviets added metal detectors to their mines and more SEALs got all blowed up. So we started using non-ferrous metals like brass and inconnel and more testing and more specs. Then the soviets added sensors for electromagnetic fields, and when the rebreathers O2 injecttion solonoid fires, youe guessed it, more SEALs got blowed up. So, now we need low wattage solonoids and shielded electronics, and more tests and specs... I may be mistaken about what order the SEALs got blown up in, or whether they were EODs guys instead, but you get the idea.

      So that is an instance where the military testing really means something. There are a million ways that something can go wrong, and combat is a special situation with it's own set of rules. On top of that the military is so concerned with it's soldiers getting blown up, at least by their own gear, that they go way overboard with the safeguards sometimes.
  • What's that supposed to mean?

    It means Micro ElectroMechanical System and Surface Acoustic Wave to me, but I'm really not sure. Care to help?

    • In a military context I would normally assume SAW to mean Squad Automatic Weapon, but that doesn't really fit the context.

  • Hi tech vs. Guerilla (Score:4, Informative)

    by fuzzy12345 ( 745891 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @04:57AM (#10941363)
    High technology counts for about zero in a guerilla war. But to the extent that fiddling with the next gadget takse your mind off the main goal, viz, making yourself liked by the locals, then leaving, it is counterproductive.
    • But to the extent that fiddling with the next gadget takse your mind off the main goal, viz, making yourself liked by the locals, then leaving, it is counterproductive.
      Clearing a building, road or field of unexploded mines and stuff like that, is not a bad way to get in the locals' good book.

  • Hi i'm lacy (Score:3, Funny)

    by hillbilly1980 ( 137340 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @05:12AM (#10941390) Homepage
    Hi, i'm joe i work in a garage, you know like The Woz, i make internet things that pretty l33t. We'll anyway nerdo, i was thinking one night on the internet and seeing all this news and stuff about iraq and i figured it would be keeno to help our soilders out with a bomb sniffer.

    Yeh so me and a buddy figured we could make million* cough*a modest profit selling these things to help the boys. You know cause the current ones me make now are really expensive, errr, i mean these guys can't buy enough of them maybe the governments not giving them enough money or something to buy them from halib...err... halifornia. You know home of all us geeks and techno companies.

    So yeh we would really like you to save us a billion in research... *cough i mean ... i mean save, save our billies from retarded terrorists who use bomb.

    So if you could just send your ideas too.

    Two Guy Garage Defense Company
    5 Houston Center
    1401 McKinney, Suite 2400
    Houston, TX 77010
    USA

    Two Guy Garage Defense Co. is trademarked by our sponsors.

  • Issues with this design... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2004 @05:16AM (#10941398)
    While this device will work in a lot of situations, there are actually some damn good reasons that the military pays a lot of money for the EOD systems they buy.

    Example one: Intrinsic safety. This is something that's used a lot in fuel and chemical industries. The basic idea is to design the system so that no component that is exposed to the outside world can cause a spark. This is not as straightforward as you might think. And it's definitely a feature I'd want implemented for a robot that's going to be crawling around IEDs.

    Example two: Verification. This new system is a great thing-- don't get me wrong-- but it's essentially just a hack. Typical procurement for something like this is going to include a whole series of tests under a LOT of different conditions. This new thing-- well, I'm sure it works just fine in the garage.

    Example three: Landline control. One of the key rules when dealing with UXOs (UneXploded Ordnance) is that you never use a radio within a certain distance of the UXO. Hand radios must be at least 25 feet away, car-mounted radios must be at least 100 feet away. This is done because there is a chance that the trigger for a given ordnance might be radio-based. A lot of robots come with landline controls for just that reason. Makes me a little anxious about seeing a radio-controlled truck as the base for an EOD system.

    There are other issues, too. Image quality, level of control over the motors, you name it. There's a lot more to ordnance disposal than simply getting a camera up close to the damn thing and sending back a picture.

    That said, a system like this probably WILL work in the majority of cases, especially in Iraq. I just don't think it'll ever be adopted by the military, despite its obvious usefulness.
    • I would disagree with you about intrinsic safety. The insurgents are using conventional HE which tends only to go bang when the detonator goes. You don't really need to be full IS for that. The transmitter for the camera won't be much of a risk as it is low power, but the very real risk is the bomb is controlled by a similar r/c circuit and frequency as the bomb.

      What we are talking about here is just something to 'go and have a look' at a possible bomb and either eliminate as a threat or ask for the EOD t

    • You may have some good points, but if the whole point of this device is to drop a charge of C4 and blow up the UXO anyway, what difference does it make if the ordnance is triggered by the RF signal of the truck when it gets too close? You lose a $1,000 RC truck. You can buy 249 more for the price of one of those Talon gizmos. The ordinance could just as easily have a magnetic detector that may be triggered by the approach of the $250,000 robot, and then you just lost a $250,000 robot. Even with stringent re
      • There's one potential problem:

        The attacker takes control of your RC truck, and drives it over to the bomb disposal squad's area and dets the C4 charge.

        Bwahahaha..

        Not likely of course, but it's always something to consider. If they ever figure out the frequencies you are using they could just blow it up ASAP, which makes it deadlier.

        Workaround is to have a mechanism to prevent detonation for at least 1 minute after the unit is deployed, or requiring the unit to be immobile for 1 minute, before the detona

  • Quick spelling nitpick (Score:3, Informative)

    by AlephNot ( 177467 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @05:21AM (#10941408)
    For those of you who don't know, it should be "ordnance" rather than "ordinance".

    From www.m-w.com [m-w.com]:

    Main Entry: ordinance
    Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s, 'or-d&n-&n(t)s
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging, from Medieval Latin ordinantia, from Latin ordinant-, ordinans, present participle of ordinare to put in order -- more at ORDAIN
    1 a : an authoritative decree or direction : ORDER b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation
    2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity
    3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony synonym see LAW

    Main Entry: ordnance
    Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English ordinaunce, from Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging
    1 a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment b : a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
    2 : CANNON, ARTILLERY

    We now return to our regularly scheduled flamewars.
  • Yes, we need that. Our municipalities have far too many ordinances.

  • Exceedingly dangerous (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2004 @05:31AM (#10941427)
    I'm an electrical engineer serving in Baghdad w/ US forces. I've seen firsthand the detonator circuits they use for these IED's. I can tell you that I have seen MANY R/C toy systems being used as the detonator for remotely-detonated IED's.



    This will get somebody killed. Let EOD do the job correctly

    • Amen. A good mate of mine in the Royal Engineers was (and is) a bomb disposal expert and spent many years in Angola getting rid of nasties like this and he mentioned that radio control was a no-no. His method was as low tech as possible: stick it all in a big hole and use a remote electrical detonator. No radio interference and if there's a shielding problem at the moment of detonation, then it really doesn't matter since you're blowing up the stuff anyway.

    • I'm an electrical engineer serving in Baghdad w/ US forces. I've seen firsthand the detonator circuits they use for these IED's. I can tell you that I have seen MANY R/C toy systems being used as the detonator for remotely-detonated IED's.

      So, you're saying that if I drive around Bagdad with an R/C transmitter, I can set off IED's before I get close to them. I don't see a problem there.

      Alternatively, I see something suspicious, stop the Humvee at a safe distance, deploy the R/C toy, and *then* its transmi

      • So, you're saying that if I drive around Bagdad with an R/C transmitter, I can set off IED's before I get close to them. I don't see a problem there.
        I understand that one technique used by the British army in NI, and also by various other forces where there is a threat is to jamn the R/C channels when you have a number of vehicles moving around, i.e., a convoy.
    • The robots deployed by the British in Northern Ireland were controlled through a wire. They were custom built and expensive. I would agree that using R/C is a no-no, but a cheaper robot can only help.

      Note that the initial British remote controlled vehicles were like this one and for checking out only. These were quite simple. Later models featuring the shotgun had to be a *lot* more robust (if only to handle the recoil).

    • I'm an electrical engineer serving in Baghdad w/ US forces. I've seen firsthand the detonator circuits they use for these IED's. I can tell you that I have seen MANY R/C toy systems being used as the detonator for remotely-detonated IED's.

      So why aren't you transmitting all possible R/C codes and frequencies throughout the area on a regular basis, to trigger the IEDs before you enter an area, or before the bad guys have a chance to put them in place? What is the problem if an R/C truck with a camera on it

  • "The same function" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @05:37AM (#10941442)
    Obviously means something different to this guy. The robots used by bomb disposal crews do a LOT more than just drive around dropping explosives. They have lots of camera equipment, audio in/out, and a mechanical arm for picking up objects, etc. They also have MUCH better propulsion, as they use tracks and not pneumatic tires. They don't just blow something up, but allow the crews to physically examine the suspect device remotely.

    Saying they do the same thing is like saying a red wagon does the same thing as a Challenger MkII tank.

  • Essentially all these drones are designed to do is part the detonator from the payload of the device (or die in the attempt). The payload usually being several pounds of rusty 'shipyard confetti'. If the detonator is still servicable (i.e. it wasn't built by a complete monkey and has managed to survive the elements until something came along to set it off), then this usually results in our brave bomb disposal robot going to silicon heaven in a loud bang and a hail of rusty nuts and bolts. Not bad for a 10

  • Do it yourself (Score:3, Funny)

    by oexeo ( 816786 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @06:03AM (#10941509)
    I made myself a commitment to build every do-it-yourself item project on slashdot, I've just started on this one. People keep asking me what it's for, I tell them, now they are starting to look at me kinda funny
  • ...I realize that this wouldn't be practical in, say, populated or build-up areas, but wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to throw hand grenades at a bomb until it blows up on its own?

  • History of wartime hacks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hussar ( 87373 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @06:14AM (#10941529) Homepage
    A number of the posters here have referred to the long design, test and deployment cycle in the military, and in very many cases, their comments are accurate. But, there is a history of wartime hacks thought up by soldiers or people who knew soldiers. A good example from the WWI was the trench periscope. During WWII, Sgt. Curtis Culin welded pieces of steel cannibalized from German beach defenses [skylighters.org] to make the "Rhino", a tank capable of cutting through the high bushy walls that lined the roads in Normandy. Today, US Reservists and National Guardsmen are figuring out ways of mounting steel plates as armor on their HUMMVs. That soldiers and marines are coming up with field expedient devices external to the Department of Defense R&D system is nothing new. Some of the hacks get incorporated into actual milspec equipment; some doesn't. The DoD has whole organizations dedicated to cataloging and studying these things as "lessons-learned". It will be interesting to see if this idea gets picked up and widely applied in Iraq.
    • A number of the posters here have referred to the long design, test and deployment cycle in the military, and in very many cases, their comments are accurate. But, there is a history of wartime hacks thought up by soldiers or people who knew soldiers.

      BYO (bring your own) dates back to at least the Revolutionary War. It wasn't uncommon during the Civil War or WWI (considering the awful French machine guns supplied to US troops....). During Korea, aviators modified their airplanes for higher speed or better
      • During Korea, aviators modified their airplanes for higher speed or better performance (by applying wax or pounding nails into strategic points).

        What, no big Type-R stickers?

  • A better choice... (Score:3)

    by inflex ( 123318 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @06:19AM (#10941538) Homepage Journal
    could have been to use a better radio control platform like a Taymia (cheap) kit with a real 4 channel control unit or higher. This would have given them a better platform with repairable parts and far greater scope of control.

    I know the guys aren't trying to make a speed-demon or such but the kit cars do make a much easier platform from which to modify things.

    Otherwise, it's a good idea.

    Paul.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @06:52AM (#10941602)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Major's logic, sergeant's logic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @07:10AM (#10941654)
    The people who go on about military procurement are clearly all desk pilots. If the armed forces had to wait for procurement to solve problems, the war would be long over before anything happened. Remember, defense departments are always fighting the last war.

    One senior military analyst, whose job was precisely to find out why equipment did not perform as expected, described it to me as major's logic and sergeant's logic. The Major says, we do it by the book. The patrol goes out and the sergeant says, we'll do it this way, lads, because the official way doesn't fucking work. Then he reports back to the major that the mission was accomplished and everything went by the book. And the major, if he wants to be a colonel, doesn't ask stupid questions. The hard bit is to get through the official chain of command wall to find out what really happens on the ground, investigate the good bits, and turn them into an official solution.

    Faced with a choice between certainly getting killed and trying something that might save you, armed forces everywhere become inventive. People bleating on about "No RF near potential booby traps" miss the point. The people on the ground are likely to have a pretty good idea of enemy capability. They might be wrong, occasionally, but that is better than having being dead most of the time. War is not a computer game, and it is not played according to neat rules by any of the sides involved. The hard bit is to strike the right balance between discipline and flexibility, and this must change from conflict to conflict.

  • Who needs robots to dispose of ordnance when you can just throw stones [trebuchet.com] at it?

    (To dispose of ordinance, you need a lawyer. On second thoughts, that would work with ordnance, too...)
  • Sounds like something Burt Gummer came up with a few years ago.

  • I did this stuff... (Score:4, Informative)

    by HexaByte ( 817350 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:23AM (#10942829)
    20 years ago, true, but I was a Combat Engineer in the Marine Corps.

    In a perfect world, you call up the Engineers, and they handle it. In peacetime you may even be able to call up the EOD guys to handle it. In war, they're never around when you want them. But we usually are.

    True, as pointed out, you don't want a lot of stray RF around, esp. since these IEDs are mostly controlled by your car alarm system key fob. However, if your frequencies are not in that range, it won't set it off.

    If it does set it off? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! That's what we do! We are not some movie or TV show hero who defuses the bomb! Most of the time we prefer to set it off in place to eliminate the threat.

    If these little robots can lug a block of C4 up to the IED, and either get away before the C4 is set off, (prefered) or sacrifice itself and get rid of it, good job! I've almost pissed my pants doing the same thing, hoping that the device wouldn't go off when I touched it.

    To sum up: in war, it's not about defusing, it's about detonating (safely) so the mission can continue!

  • Most "repurposible" radio receivers use one or more local oscillators in their circuits to "down convert" the RF signal into a range more easily demodulated. This involves locally generating a RF signal of a certain frequency and mixing it in with the incoming signal in a non-linear device.

    These local oscillator signals "leak out" of the reciever and can be detected remotely. The existence of these leaks is why radio recievers are not allowed on airplanes and are a way in which unlicensed television sets are detected in countries which require them to be licensed.

    I presume this process is what is being eluded to by the reference to RF detectors at the end of the /. article.

    I am surprised that RF detection methods are not in service already (if they would work). Perhaps Iraq is a very RF noisy place and RF analysis is only as useful as metal detection - there would be so many false alarms from cell phones, TV sets, sparking power line insulators, etc., that it really would not help.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lawrence Radiation Laboratory keeps all its data in an old gray trunk.

Close