Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Parachutes vs. RPGs

All kinds of inventors and gagdeteers have come up with all kinds of ways to try to stop rocket-propelled grenades before they slam into a Humvee. The U.S. Army wants to blast the thing with a foot-long mini-rocket. The Brits think they can do with with a massive electrical charge. And a company called Aoptix Technologies wants to "apply... high energy light based weapons" to stop the things.

parachute.jpgReader NB has dug up a patent for a different type of RPG-stopper: one that uses a parachute.

When an incoming munition such as an RPG is detected by the tracking apparatus 12, the firing solution computer 14 determines the time of launch and the particular launch tube 16 and sends a firing signal to the igniter 24 of the appropriate launch tube 16. The igniter 24 initiates the propelling charge 22. As the propelling charge 22 burns, expanding gases 40 (FIG. 2B) that are sealed behind the obturator 26 push the mass 20 up the tube 16. The mass 20 continually accelerates in the direction of the arrow V until the obturator 26 exits the end of the tube 16. Soon after the mass 20 exits the tube 16, the cable 32 will be pulled taut. As the force acting on the cable 32 increases, the parachute 30 will be pulled from its storage container 18.

Simultaneously, the resultant force acting on the connecting ring 28 will cause the mass 20 to rapidly rotate as shown by the arrow w in FIG. 2D until the connecting ring 28 is facing rearward. As the mass 20 continues to fly forward, the parachute lines 34 and canopy 36 will be pulled from the storage container 18. Within a short period of time the parachute 30 will be fully inflated and flying directly towards the incoming RPG 38. The parachute 30 will remain inflated for a long time relative to the incoming projectile's 38 remaining flight time to impact, thereby alleviating the need for precise timing and fuzing systems. There are several mechanisms by which the collision between the parachute 30 and RPG 38 will render the RPG 38 less effective.

A significant amount of the momentum of the parachute 30 and mass 20 (which is similar to the momentum of the incoming RPG 38) will be transferred to the RPG 38, thereby slowing it and possibly causing it to miss the intended target. Secondly, the collision will cause damage to the RPG 38 such as breaking fins or crushing the nose cone. Damage to the fins and disturbance upon impact will cause the RPG angle of attack to grow, thereby greatly reducing its terminal effectiveness. Crushing the nose cone can short the RPG fuzing system, rendering the warhead inoperable. The collision between the parachute 30 and RPG 38 will take place well away from the protected vehicle 10. If the collision causes the warhead to detonate prematurely it is much less likely to hit or damage the protected vehicle 10.

Comments

The funky parachute sounds like an ok idea. Spacing of the net structure could be critical. Like the slat armour which has proved effective, this would be uggly, but might work. If you can tumble, smash the nose, explode prematurely, or deflect an RPG you can avoid the armour puncturing explosive jet that makes RPGs so dangerous.


Posted by: Rob at March 14, 2006 12:17 AM


You fools. It works by detonating the warhead before it comes in contact with the vehicles armor, rendering it ineffective. Thats how RPG cages work. A sticky net would do the same thing as the parachute, but why waste money on paste.

Posted by: wek at December 15, 2005 08:12 PM


Stupid question... the Brit electric armor showed up 3 years ago, and appeared to work then.

Since then there's been nothing, and we could really use it right now.

Does anybody know if that was just a Brit psyop on Saddam (sorry chap, you can hurt our vehicles), or if it was real?

If it was real, what's the holdup?

Posted by: Big D at December 11, 2005 02:24 PM


Indeed sounds like a goofy idea, but I must add that in an indoor archery range I went to they used a simple fabric backstop, a large nylon curtain, made from you guessed it old drag chutes, similar principle to how a Kevlar vest works...

So while it sounds bizarre it may actually work in some respects.

MD

Posted by: MD at December 9, 2005 01:43 PM


interesting approach.

wonder if it would actually work in the field.

also wonder if something like a sticky net, maybe weighted offcenter, would do the job.

Posted by: jnr at December 8, 2005 06:27 PM


Just another example why the patent system is a joke. The idea sounds like it can potentially work if the parachute was made of like IRON (lol) but people should not be able to patent anything without 1) selling whatever they have patented -and- 2) actually building whatever they want to patent.

How can you say you own science? If people want to capitalize on ideas it should be through superior quality, service, and being an original or sole manufacturer/inventor of some idea. Filing a patent to say you own knowledge is an insult.

Posted by: jtw at December 8, 2005 01:41 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.