Evaluation of the Minelifta Flail

Transcription

1 Evaluation of the Minelifta Flail QINETIQ/LWS/LSAA/TR010316/1.1 Copy of 9 Cover + ix + 7 pages June 2001 Mr C A Leach

2 Customer Information Customer Reference Number CNTR (2) Project Title Evaluation of the Minelifta Flail Company Name Department for International Customer Contact Ms H Gorrie Contract Number CNTR (2) Milestone Number N/A Date Due (dd/mm/yyyy) 02/05/2001 This Document was produced by QinetiQ for Department for International Development Under Order/Contract reference CNTR (2) Copyright of QinetiQ ltd 2001 ii

3 Authorisation Prepared by Title Mr C A Leach Project Engineer Signature Date Location QINETIQ Chertsey Authorised by Title Mr J Hambly Technical Manager Signature Date Principal authors Name Appointment Location Mr C A Leach Project Engineer QINETIQ Chertsey iii

4 Record of changes Issue Date Detail of Changes A Draft issue /05/01 Minor Amendments iv

5 Abstract The Minelifta flail has been developed by Corus Northern Engineering Services with the aim of clearing anti-personnel mines, it consists of a tracked Prime Mover unit and a flail enclosed in a louvred Cowling with a blade at the front. The principle of this design is that the blade cuts through the ground to the required depth, the cut soil is then flailed but the louvred Cowling keeps the processed soil from being thrown out over a large area. The testing and evaluation of the Minelifta Flail was carried out by DERA on behalf of DFID (The Department For International Development). The tests were carried out at DERA s Hurn and Porton Down test facilities in the U.K. and were designed to test the potential of the Minelifta flail to clear anti-personnel mines from roads, tracks and cross-country. The Minelifta flail Cowling was also subjected to fragmentation and anti-tank mines. Overall, the objectives of the trial were achieved by demonstrating the theory of the enclosed flail and identifying areas requiring further development. As with most mechanical clearance devices the application of this equipment has to be in the context of the mine threat, type of terrain, climatic and environmental conditions and of the overall demining operation and operating procedures. v

6 Executive summary The Minelifta flail has been developed by Corus Northern Engineering Services with the aim of clearing anti-personnel mines. It consists of a tracked Prime Mover unit and a flail enclosed in a louvred Cowling with a blade at the front. The principle of this design is that the blade cuts through the ground up to a design depth of 200mm, the cut soil is then flailed but the louvred Cowling keeps the processed soil from being thrown out over a large area. The testing and evaluation of the Minelifta Flail was carried out by DERA on behalf of DFID (The Department For International Development). The tests were carried out at DERA s Hurn and Porton Down test facilities in the U.K. and were designed to test the potential of the Minelifta flail to clear anti-personnel mines from roads, tracks and crosscountry. The Minelifta flail Cowling was also subjected to fragmentation and anti-tank mine attack. Testing was done under the headings of Transportability, Mobility, Performance and Survivability tests. The tests were designed to check the performance and survivability of the machines in various terrain and soil conditions, and against an inert mined area and live mines. The tests were not designed to replicate any specific mined area in any specific mine affected country. During the tests, the Minelifta unit proved to be a robust and manoeuvrable machine. However, Minelifta came to testing with no statement of operational procedures or ability. It was evident from this that Minelifta was still at the prototype stage of development. The trials carried out in this report showed that the concept of Minelifta was sound. Development and testing should be carried out to improve this piece of equipment further. vi

7 List of contents Authorisation Record of changes Abstract Executive summary List of contents List of Tables List of Figures iii iv v vi vii viii ix 1 Introduction Contractual Matters Background Mine Threat 2 2 Aim 3 3 Scope 3 4 Minelifta General The Minelifta Process 4 5 Trials Methodology General Sites Procedures 8 6 Test Procedures and Results General Minelifta Phase 1 - Performance Minelifta Phase 2 Survivability 72 7 Conclusions 94 8 Recommendations 97 Report documentation page 101 vii

8 List of Tables Table 1-1; Inert mines used 2 Table 1-2; Live mines used 2 Table 6-1; Summary of Tests 9 Table 6-2; Principal Dimensions 10 Table 6-3; Weight 12 Table 6-4; Maximum Approach Angles 12 Table 6-5; Slope Data 16 Table 6-6; Timed run 21 Table 6-7; Log of hours and maintenance 28 Table 6-8; End of run procedure 31 viii

9 List of Figures Figure 4-1; Minelifta 4 Figure 4-2; Front view of Minelifta 5 Figure 6-1; Plan view of Minelifta 10 Figure 6-2; Minelifta on low loader 11 Figure 6-3; Minelifta loading onto a low-loader 13 Figure 6-4; Minelifta on the weighbridge 13 Figure 6-5; Minelifta Turning Circle 15 Figure 6-6; Minelifta ascending slopes 17 Figure 6-7; Minelifta on the 31% slope 18 Figure 6-8; Course layout 22 Figure 6-9; Minelifta starting Test A2d 23 Figure 6-10; Camera Positions 25 Figure 6-11; Front view from cab with flail Cowling down 26 Figure 6-12; Left view from cab with flail cowling down 26 Figure 6-13; Trial run mined area 30 Figure 6-14; Minelifta flailing on Run 1 32 Figure 6-15; Mine layout Run 2 34 Figure 6-16; Mines on Gravel Track after run 35 Figure 6-17; Minelifta grounded having lost traction 35 Figure 6-18; Mine layout Run 3 36 Figure 6-19; Depth measurement of the soil bund 37 Figure 6-20; Representation of bund width 37 Figure 6-21; Wood and plastic mine layout 38 Figure 6-22; Wood and plastic mine end states 38 Figure 6-23; Plastic mine after run 40 Figure 6-24; AT/AP Mined Area 42 Figure 6-25; AT Mine after run 5 43 Figure 6-26; Mine layout Run 6 44 Figure 6-27; Minelifta flailing on run 6 45 Figure 6-28; Mine layout Run 7 46 Figure 6-29; Bund after run 47 Figure 6-30; Intact mine in bund 47 Figure 6-31; Mine layout Run 8 48 Figure 6-32; Minelifta at the start of run 8 49 Figure 6-33; Spoil build up around turnbuckles 49 Figure 6-34; Mine layout Run 9 50 Figure 6-35; Minelifta flailing the branches 51 Figure 6-36; Mine left in track after run 51 Figure 6-37; Instrumented Mine 52 Figure 6-38; Instrumented Mine after run (not activated) 53 Figure 6-39; Mine layout Run Figure 6-40; Peat Mine layout Run Figure 6-41; Air dropped mine layout Run Figure 6-42; AT mines on run Figure 6-43; Scatterable mines and bomblets on run Figure 6-44; Minelifta about to flail spikes and webbing lengths 57 Figure 6-45; Minelifta with webbing caught in flails 57 Figure 6-46; Minelifta flailing across the first set of runs in the mined area 58 Figure 6-47; General Mine layout Run Figure 6-48; Peat mine layout Run 12(2+3) 61 ix

10 Figure 6-49; Minelifta at start of run Figure 6-50; AP peat mine in thick grass 62 Figure 6-51; AT mine after run Figure 6-52; Side view of the sandy humps 64 Figure 6-53; Mine layout Run Figure 6-54; Minelifta flailing over humps 65 Figure 6-55; Side view of Minelifta flailing over humps, (note gap underneath the cowling ) 66 Figure 6-56; Minelifta on side of humps 66 Figure 6-57; Mine layout Run Figure 6-58; Rubble strewn road 69 Figure 6-59; Log Barrier 70 Figure 6-60; Clearance of rubble on track 70 Figure 6-61; Track after clearance 71 Figure 6-62; Concertina barbed wire tangled around flail rotor 71 Figure 6-63; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.1 72 Figure 6-64; Minelifta with PE changes laid 73 Figure 6-65; Front View of Minelifta during detonation 73 Figure 6-66; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.2 74 Figure 6-67; Front View of Minelifta before detonation firing 2 75 Figure 6-68; Front View of Minelifta during detonation of AP mines in firing 2 75 Figure 6-69; Front View of Minelifta after detonation of AP mines in firing 2 76 Figure 6-70; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.3 78 Figure 6-71; AP in place underneath blade 79 Figure 6-72; Hole in underneath of blade 79 Figure 6-73; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.4 80 Figure 6-74; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.5 82 Figure 6-75; PE charge placed in the upper louvres 83 Figure 6-76; Front View of Minelifta during detonation of firing 4 83 Figure 6-77; Close up of the turnbuckle after detonation 84 Figure 6-78; Close up of the louvre after detonation showing minor damage and bolt sheared 84 Figure 6-79; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.6 (Fragmentation Mines) 86 Figure 6-80; Front View of Minelifta before detonation of the first stake mine 88 Figure 6-81; Front View of Minelifta during detonation of the first stake mine 88 Figure 6-82; Side View of Minelifta during detonation of the second stake mine 89 Figure 6-83; Side view of Minelifta after detonation of the second stake mine showing shrapnel holes in the witness screen 89 Figure 6-84; General Front View of Minelifta 90 Figure 6-85; Front View of Minelifta before Detonation of AT Mine 91 Figure 6-86; Front View of Minelifta during Detonation of AT Mine 92 Figure 6-87; Front View of Minelifta after Detonation of AT Mine 92 Figure 6-88; Plan of debris after AT mine detonation 93 Figure 7-1; Highlighting the problem with change of slope 94 x

11 1 Introduction 1.1 Contractual Matters This report has been issued by QinetiQ, (although the work was carried out whilst the organisation was part of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency) for the Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD) of The Department for International Development (DFID) Authority by DFID to undertake the trial was given in January 2001 under enabling agreement CNTR (2) A Trial Plan (No. HD1/7/1) was submitted to DFID on 19 th January Background Corus Northern Engineering Services has developed a system that has the potential for detonating mines and removing anti-personnel (AP) mines and debris from mine affected land The system comprises of an enclosed flail and a tracked Prime Mover unit. The enclosed flail has a blade at the front so that the soil is lifted then flailed. The flail differs from many other flail units by the addition of a louvred cowling designed to reduce the amount of soil and debris thrown out whilst venting any blast wave at the same time. The characteristic of a large amount of soil and debris thrown out is common to all flails. Page 1 of 101

12 1.3 Mine Threat A mix of FFE (Free From Explosives) anti-personnel (AP) mines, FFE anti-tank (AT) mines and other FFE unexploded ordnance (UXO) was used in the inert minefield encounter. These are shown below in Table 1.1. Type Depth buried Anti-Personnel Mines Generic Wax Filled Generic Peat Surface, Inert Model Mines Flush, Generic Wooden Block 75mm to base Generic Instrumented Anti-Tank Mines Generic Instrumented Surface, Metal Model Mines Flush, 200mm to base Table 1-1; Inert mines used For the survivability trial, AP blast and fragmentation mines were used together with an AT blast mine. These are shown below in Table 1.2. Anti-Personnel Mines Anti-Tank Mines APP-M57 Amounts of Plastic Explosive to represent blast AP mines PMR-4 (Off-Route Mine) TMA-4 Table 1-2; Live mines used Page 2 of 101

13 2 Aim The aim of the trial was to test and evaluate the transportability, mobility, performance and survivability of the Minelifta flail system under defined threat and terrain conditions. The trial set out to prove the concept of this prototype system under repeatable scientific conditions not to replicate any specific field conditions. 3 Scope The equipment was evaluated on its performance and its ability to clear representative AT mines, AP mines and other battlefield debris. Performance tests included transportability and manoeuvrability across flat, uphill, downhill and cross-country runs. For some of these runs, inert mines were laid on the surface or buried flush to or beneath the surface. The survivability of the system was tested against live AP blast and fragmentation mines and blast AT mines. Page 3 of 101

14 4 Minelifta 4.1 General The Minelifta system for the purposes of definition in this report can be represented by two parts. The Prime Mover, in this case a Komatsu D65EX, including the flail powerpack which in its current configuration has not been armoured and the Flail Cowling. The flail cowling has a blade at the front so that the soil is lifted then flailed. The flail differs from many other flail units by the addition of a louvred cowling designed to reduce the amount of soil and debris thrown out whilst venting any blast wave at the same time. The characteristic of a large amount of soil and debris thrown out is common with flails. See below. Prime Mover Flail Cowling 4.2 The Minelifta Process Figure 4-1; Minelifta Soil to a depth of 20cm is scooped into the cowling and pulverised by the flails with the aim of exploding live devices and breaking up others. The spoil is deposited in a mound between the tracks at the rear of Minelifta for further examination. A fuller description of the machine with regard to performance criteria, clearance rates, depth of clearance, power requirements, flail speeds and depth control could not be given at this stage since the version of Minelifta presented for testing was a working prototype which had undergone very little testing. Page 4 of 101

15 Figure 4-2; Front view of Minelifta Page 5 of 101

16 5 Trials Methodology 5.1 General The trial was carried out and managed by the Counter Minewarfare team from DERA Chertsey. Details can be found in the Trial Plan, Ref: HD1/7/1. Results and observations were recorded daily and supported by still photography and video recordings. The trial was conducted in two phases: Phase 1- Transportability, Mobility and Performance Phase one included transportability, handling and mobility of the machine followed by the assessment of the performance and. Transportability tests assess the factors involved in movement of equipment to and from the demining area. These include size and general dimensions, weight and ability to climb loading ramps. Mobility tests include assessments of both travelling speed and clearance speed and general manoeuvrability. Performance tests are split into three main areas. Fitness for purpose is assessed in conjunction with other tests and by encountering mine simulants and other objects in a series inert minefield. Reliability is assessed on a day to day basis throughout the trial with notes taken of any maintenance required. Economical costs are assessed by comparing the amount of consumables, such as fuel, used against the amount of work carried out by the machine Phase 2 -Survivability The Minelifta system was subjected to static live mine encounters to determine the limit of survivability of the equipment. 5.2 Sites Two sites were used for this trial; DERA Hurn and DERA Porton Down both in the south of the UK. Page 6 of 101

17 5.2.1 DERA Hurn The Hurn site consists of sandy topsoil, which in parts has remained undisturbed for a number of years. The vegetation consists of light grass with clumps of marsh grass, small shrubs and saplings. The site has purpose built test lanes varying from blacktop surfaces to sand with varying cambers, cross grooves and ditches and measured slopes and turning circles DERA Porton Down The Porton Down site consists of arable topsoil, which has been left fallow for a number of years. The location for the detonation of mines is secluded from the rest of the range by woodland. Page 7 of 101

18 5.3 Procedures Phase 1, the trial was conducted at Hurn, using the range of test lanes and slopes available to measure performance The inert minefield encounter used inert generic mine shapes, instrumented and inert AP and AT mines as targets. These were laid to a specific pattern and depth for each test run. (Table 1.1) For Phase 2 the trial moved to Porton Down, where static tests using live mines took place. (Table 1.2) Details of the test procedures and results are shown in the following pages. Page 8 of 101

19 6 Test Procedures and Results 6.1 General Test procedure and performance sheets were issued for each test. The test performance sheets have been separately published and are available from QINETIQ A summary of the tests is shown in Table A description, summary of results and comments/observations of each test are detailed on the following pages and should be read in conjunction with the relevant performance sheet which have been issued separately. Test Description Data Sheet Weight & General Dimensions a) Wheelbase A1 b) Approach Angle A1 c) General Dimensions A1 d) Axle Weights A1 Handling & Mobility a) Turning Circle A2a b) Slopes A2b c) Straight Line Speed A2c Field of Vision Logistics/Daily Maintenance Inert Minefield Encounter A3 A4 A5 Live Firing a) AP Blast A6 b) AP Fragmentation A6 c) AT Blast A6 Table 6-1; Summary of Tests Page 9 of 101

20 6.2 Minelifta Phase 1 - Performance Test A1 General Dimensions Description The vehicle was parked on solid flat level ground and the following dimensions were obtained: The overall length, width and height of the main body The wheelbase of the main body. L2 L3 Forward L1 L1 = 2550mm L2 = 3690mm (2680mm hub to hub) L3 = 2250mm (Plus 2 x 540mm for motors) L4 = 8990mm HEIGHT = 3400mm (Cab Top) 3580mm (Air Intake) L4 Figure 6-1; Plan view of Minelifta Results: Test Measurement Result Principal Overall Length of vehicle 8.99m Dimensions Maximum Width of vehicle 3.555m Overall Height 3.58m Other Dimensions Length of Minelifta only 3.14m Length of Cutting Blade 2.73m Length of Flail Shaft 2.15m Length of Flail Chain 0.6m to hammer Height of Mouth of Cowling 1.14m Max Raised Height of Cowling (from blade pivot to the floor) 2.355m Table 6-2; Principal Dimensions Page 10 of 101

21 Figure 6-2; Minelifta on low loader Page 11 of 101

22 6.2.2 Test A1 Weights Description A weighbridge was used to measure the gross weight of Minelifta. It was intended to measure the individual wheel station weights to obtain the position of the centre of gravity in the X-Z plane, but due to constraints, this was not possible Results: (See Trial Sheet A1 for full results data) Test Measurement Result Weight Gross Weight (Fully Fuelled) 33080kg Table 6-3; Weight Test A1 Approach Angles Description The vehicle was parked on solid flat level ground with the flail arm fully raised. The end of a flat bar was placed on the ground parallel to the centre of the front road wheel and the bar raised until it came into contact with the vehicle frame. The angle between the ground and the bar, the approach angle was then measured using a clinometer Results: Test Measurement Result Approach Max. Front Approach Angle 40º Angles Max. Rear Departure Angle : 23º46 (LHS) 22º08 (RHS) Table 6-4; Maximum Approach Angles Comments & Observations for all A1 tests Transportability: The machine was capable of being driven onto and off a standard low loader transporter. It was stated by the manufacturers that the cowling can also be dissembled into its component parts. Page 12 of 101

23 Figure 6-3; Minelifta loading onto a low-loader Figure 6-4; Minelifta on the weighbridge Page 13 of 101

24 This page is intentionally blank Page 14 of 101

25 6.2.4 Test A2a Handling & Mobility - Turning Circle Description Results: Minelifta was required to turn through 360 in as smaller radius as was possible. Minelifta turned within a circle of 13.7m diameter (due to skid steer) Comments & Observations The skid steer ability enabled Minelifta to turn almost in its own length hence the above result. The test was carried out on wet sandy soil, which meant that Minelifta began to dig itself in during the turn. Due to the aggressive nature of the tracks Minelifta was not able to make tight turns on made up surfaces without causing damage to the surface. The use of a prime mover with rubber track pads may reduce this effect. Ø13.7m Ø9.6 Minelifta Scale metres Figure 6-5; Minelifta Turning Circle Page 15 of 101

26 6.2.5 Test A2b Handling & Mobility - Slopes Description The vehicle was parked on flat solid ground at the base of a known angled slope at Hurn test site. The vehicle was manually controlled up the slope and halted half way up and the brakes applied. The brakes were released and the vehicle reversed down the slope Results: Gradient Results 24.5% Stop and restart Satisfactory, Brakes OK 31% Stop and restart Satisfactory, Brakes OK (Tarmac) 31% Stop and restart (Off-road Slope) Comments & Observations Forward Satisfactory, Brakes OK Reverse Back lifted due to rut in the slopes. Table 6-5; Slope Data Minelifta performed adequately on the slopes. Page 16 of 101

27 Figure 6-6; Minelifta ascending slopes Page 17 of 101

28 Figure 6-7; Minelifta on the 31% slope Page 18 of 101

29 This page is intentionally blank Page 19 of 101

30 This page is intentionally blank Page 20 of 101

31 6.2.6 Test A2c Handling & Mobility Timed Run Description Results: The aim of this test was to measure the vehicle s maximum road speed and flailing speed. Minelifta was stopped on flat ground with cut heather foliage. The speed measuring kit set up along a 25m length. Minelifta was allowed a short run up. Description Distance (m) Time (sec) Speed (kph) Average Speed (kph) Road Speed Flailing at 100mm Comments & Observations Table 6-6; Timed run None. Page 21 of 101

32 6.2.7 Test A2d Handling & Mobility - Terrain Description Results: The aim was to test Minelifta s ability to clear undulating ground and flail at a constant depth with respect to the profile of the ground. Minelifta accomplished the course (Fig. 6.10) in forward and reverse adequately Comments & Observations At the top of the first slope, Minelifta was stopped and the cowling dropped to its lowest extent. It was seen that the flails failed to make contact with the ground at this point. This highlighted a limiting factor with respect to ground profiling. Direction of Travel 26.3m 23.5m m Gradient: ' 13 45' 14 15' 9 50' Figure 6-8; Course layout Page 22 of 101

33 Figure 6-9; Minelifta starting Test A2d Page 23 of 101

34 6.2.8 Test A3 Field of Vision Description The aim of this test was to assess all round driver visibility. The vehicle was positioned on a flat area of ground. The views from the driver s seat and the rear camera were plotted Results: a. The vision diagram is reproduced in fig b. In the diagrams: White represents clear vision. Shaded area represents the rear camera view. Hatched area represents no vision Comments & Observations It was noted that vision was limited by the cowling at the front of Minelifta. Page 24 of 101

35 20m 15m 10m Minelifta 5m Dozer Power Pack Clear View Blind Spot Rear Camera View Scale m Figure 6-10; Camera Positions Page 25 of 101

36 Figure 6-11; Front view from cab with flail Cowling down Figure 6-12; Left view from cab with flail cowling down Page 26 of 101

37 This page is intentionally blank Page 27 of 101

38 6.2.9 Test A4 Logistics and Daily Maintenance Description Results: The aim was to assess the service routine by considering the amount of maintenance and consumables needed in the day to day running of Minelifta. Loading (Day 7) 1 hour. Date Hours Logged Consumables Comments 12 Feb 2 None Unloading:- ~30 minutes 13 Feb 4 General top up of all oils and lubes. 14 Feb 5 Minor hydraulic leaks:- Main feed pipe from Power Pack and internal leak in Power Pack 15 Feb 6 ½Ltr Engine Oil, Re-adjusted the blade turnbuckles, Replaced Dowty seals on Power Pack. 16 Feb 2 ½Ltr Transmission Oil (Prime Mover), 9½Ltrs Hydraulic Oil (Power Pack) Tighten up 1 bolt & replace 1 lost locating bolt. Side plate of Minelifta bowed slightly. 19 Feb 4 1 tube grease (2x Flail Motor bearings). Cracks on stiffening column of LHS of Push frame. 180Ltrs Diesel Power Pack, 267Ltrs Diesel Prime Mover (Out of 406Ltrs) Table 6-7; Log of hours and maintenance Comments & Observations Loading/Unloading:- Minelifta comes ready to deploy on the back of a low loader unloading was therefore an easy operation. Routine maintenance of the Komatsu was as per the manufacturers instructions. Page 28 of 101

39 This page is intentionally blank Page 29 of 101

40 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run 1 (Initial Trial run with no mines) Description The aim was to assess the method and techniques for clearing a mined area using Minelifta Results: 35m Run-In Area 6m 'Unsafe' Area 9m Terrain: Flat, wet sandy soil near Bridging Area, Hurn Comments & Observations Figure 6-13; Trial run mined area 1: On the first run in the Run-In area Minelifta only managed to skim the surface. 2: There was a noticeable build-up of spoil on and around the blade turnbuckles. 3: On the third run (in the same ruts as runs 1 & 2) in the Run-In area Minelifta seemed to build up too much spoil at the blade, lost traction and bellied out on the spoil bund. It was learnt that on this type of ground (running sand) that Minelifta should not do more than 2 runs in the same tracks or dig too deeply. 4: A small amount of spoil was seen to pass underneath the chute at the rear of the cowling on the start of each run. 5: The nature and intensity of the trial meant that the flailing procedure required a large amount of driver input and experience, this could become tiring over prolonged periods. Page 30 of 101

41 6: In the absence of any operators procedures an end of run procedure was developed. See below Number Action 1 Come to stop at the end of the mined area 2 Reverse and flail for 1 whole length of Minelifta 3 Forward and flail for 1 whole length of Minelifta (back to the stop point) 4 Lift Flail Cowling 5 Move forward 1 whole length of Minelifta passed the stop point 6 Reverse and flail for 1 whole length of Minelifta 7 Forward and flail for 1 whole length of Minelifta at maximum depth Table 6-8; End of run procedure 7: At the start of each run the depth of cut was very shallow, the required depth was achieved several metres after the start of the run. 8: The wet sand made this a severe test. Page 31 of 101

42 Figure 6-14; Minelifta flailing on Run 1 Page 32 of 101

43 This page is intentionally blank Page 33 of 101

44 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description An AP mined area was laid on wet sandy soil using the simulated (peat) mines. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. Four mines were placed at the end of the run to determine the end of run characteristics. (See Below.) FINISH 4 mines at end of run FINISH 9m m 1m 1m m 9m 1m 3 - SURFACE LAID 9m 2 1.5m - FLUSH - BURIED 1m 1.5m 1 1m 9m START LC START Results: Figure 6-15; Mine layout Run 2 1: All the mines were hit or destroyed except two which were left in the side spoil in an area covered by the next run. 2: Just before the second minefield Minelifta dug too deep, the flails were overwhelmed and Minelifta grounded itself and lost traction. 3: The evidence of broken mine pieces showed that the end of run procedure worked on this run Comments & Observations This run highlighted the need for clearance procedures and techniques to be developed for Minelifta. It also highlighted the need of good depth control the operator. Page 34 of 101

45 Figure 6-16; Mines on Gravel Track after run Figure 6-17; Minelifta grounded having lost traction Page 35 of 101

46 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description An AP mined area was laid on wet sandy soil using the Peat mines. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). FINISH FINISH 9m m 1m 1m m 9m 1m 9m Previous Bund Spoil Line SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED 1m Mines left from last run 9m START 1m LC 1.5m 1 START Figure 6-18; Mine layout Run Results: 1: Minelifta s operator didn t cut deep enough at the start and so missed the flush buried mine (No.3). 2: Minelifta s operator also missed one of the mines from the first run and pushed a mine into the uncleared area. 3: A second pass over this area dug to an adequate depth (~180mm) Comments & Observations None. Page 36 of 101

47 Figure 6-19; Depth measurement of the soil bund Figure 6-20; Representation of bund width Page 37 of 101

48 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description An AP mined area was laid on wet sandy soil using the Peat mines. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). FINISH FINISH 9m m 1m 9m 9m Wood Plastic 2 1m 1m 1.5m m 1m Spoil Line 1m Previous Bund 1 - SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED 9m START LC START Figure 6-21; Wood and plastic mine layout Start End state of Plastic mines 2 Start End state of Wooden mines m 1m 2m 2m - Tracks - Bund Figure 6-22; Wood and plastic mine end states Page 38 of 101

49 Results: 1: Little damage to wooden and plastic mines although all of them were hit. 2: It can be seen that the mines were moved either to one side or into the bund in the middle of the run. 3: The mines are also moved backwards by approximately 1-2 metres Comments & Observations An extra run was performed using the plastic mines to determine why they weren t being destroyed. It was thought that this was due to the hard nature of the casings of the mines, the very soft ground and the power of the flail. It was deduced that although the mines were representative of the shape of the mines they were not representative of the structure and probably would have been destroyed. Page 39 of 101

50 Figure 6-23; Plastic mine after run Page 40 of 101

51 This page is intentionally blank Page 41 of 101

52 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter (AT & AP) Run Description A mixture of AT an AP mines were laid on soft sandy soil. Minelifta was required to clear them. (See Below). Cleared Area Spoil Line Plastic AT Buried Plastic AP Plastic AT Surface Direction of travel Results: Both AT were destroyed. 10m Figure 6-24; AT/AP Mined Area The flailing depth was measured at 165mm Comments & Observations a. The mouth of the Cowling was being clogged at the sides resulting in only a 1.8m wide channel of free-flowing soil forming at the centre of the Cowling. b. Although the plastic AP mines were not destroyed they were hit a number of times each. For reasons stated previously these mines could be said to have been probably destroyed. Page 42 of 101

53 Figure 6-25; AT Mine after run 5 Page 43 of 101

54 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description An AP mined area was laid on sandy peat soil with heather using the Peat mines. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). Mines left from last run 10m FINISH FINISH m 1m 1m m 10m 1m 10m Previous Bund Spoil Line SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED 1m 1.5m 1 10m 1m START START LC Results: Figure 6-26; Mine layout Run 6 All mines destroyed. Flail depth ~100mm Comments & Observations None. Page 44 of 101

55 Figure 6-27; Minelifta flailing on run 6 Page 45 of 101

56 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description An AP mined area was laid on sandy peat soil with heather using the Peat mines. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). Mines left from last run 10m FINISH FINISH m 1m 1m m 10m 1m 10m Previous Bund Spoil Line SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED 1m 1.5m 1 10m 1m START START LC Results: Figure 6-28; Mine layout Run 7 1: Minelifta became bogged down and lost traction at the end of the run; too much spoil at the blade occurring due to flail depth set too deep. 2: 4 Mines from the first minefield were still intact. All mines and mine parts were found in the bund Comments & Observations None. Page 46 of 101

57 Figure 6-29; Bund after run Figure 6-30; Intact mine in bund Page 47 of 101

58 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description The aim of this test was to examine what happened to mines at the edge of the run being cleared by Minelifta. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). FINISH 1.35 FINISH 10m Buried Spoil Line m m Surface Previous Bund m START LC START All dimensions in metres Results: Figure 6-31; Mine layout Run 8 1: The first six mines from the surface laid minefield were cleared. 2: 1 surface laid mine was skimmed and squashed into the track. 3: 1 surface laid mine was pushed out into the side spoil 4: 5 buried mines were cleared and 3 buried mines were pushed into the side spoil Comments & Observations None. Page 48 of 101

59 Figure 6-32; Minelifta at the start of run 8 Figure 6-33; Spoil build up around turnbuckles Page 49 of 101

60 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description An AP mined area was laid on sandy peat soil with heather using the Peat mines. In the first minefield, small branches and logs were placed over the mines. In the second minefield the mines were place in the same pattern as the first but all buried at 200mm to their base. Five mines that had been pushed over from the last run were positioned in the spoil line. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). FINISH 1.35 FINISH 10m 10m 10m Branches 200mm Buried 5 Previous Bund Spoil Line 1m m m 1m 1m 1m - SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED 1.5m 1 10m 1m START START LC Results: Figure 6-34; Mine layout Run 9 1: Minelifta s operator started flailing too deep mines from the first minefield were found intact in the bund. 3. The first mine from the second minefield was not picked up by the blade and passed under one of the tracks. 4: The second mine from the second minefield was found intact in the bund. 5: All other mines destroyed. Page 50 of 101

61 Figure 6-35; Minelifta flailing the branches Figure 6-36; Mine left in track after run Page 51 of 101

62 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description The aim of this test was to determine whether mines would be activated or neutralised by impact of the flail hammers on the soil. Two instrumented AP mine were laid at a depth 200mm to the base of the mine in sandy peat soil with heather. Firstly, Minelifta was set to flail at a depth of 100mm, driven forward over the mine, and then backed off. Minelifta repeated the test as before except carried on forward until it had completely cleared the mine. The trigger weight of the mines was 8.5kg Results: 1: The first part of the test was repeated three times. The mine was not triggered on any of these runs. 2: The second part was repeated twice. The mine was only triggered once (when it was picked up by the flails and the top ripped off Comments & Observations Due to the unpredictable nature of mines, the limited amount of tests and the effects of different soil types on transfer of energy and vibration it is not possible to state categorically that Minelifta would activate or neutralise mines in this manner. An increase of power/speed may increase the probability of such a detonation as this. Figure 6-37; Instrumented Mine Page 52 of 101

63 Figure 6-38; Instrumented Mine after run (not activated) Figure 6-39; Damaged instrumented mine Page 53 of 101

64 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description The aim of this test was to assess the ability of Minelifta to deal with AT and Scatterable mines as well as other battlefield debris. Four minefields were laid in the run. The first minefield contained 3 AT mines at various depths; surface, flush and at 200mm. The second minefield consisted of scatterable munitions and scatterable mines such as the PFM-1 Butterfly mine. The third minefield had 4 large metal spikes with webbing strop attached (see fig. 6-44). The final minefield was laid in the standard configuration using peat mines to determine whether the previous obstacles had affected the performance of Minelifta. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). FINISH 1.35 FINISH 10m 10m 10m 10m Peat Mines Scatterable Mines AT Mines Spikes & Webbing START Previous Bund 5 Spoil Line 1m 3 2 1m 0.75m m LC 1m 1m 1m - SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED 1.5m 1 START Figure 6-40; Peat Mine layout Run 11 Page 54 of 101

65 FINISH 1.35 FINISH 10m 10m 10m 10m AT Mines Peat Mines Air-dropped Mines Spikes & Webbing START 5 Bund Spoil Line 1m 3 2 1m LC 0.75m m 1m 1m 1m - BLU-92 - Giat Minotaur - PFM-1 1.5m 1 START Results: Figure 6-41; Scatterable mine layout Run 11 1: All three AT mines were found in the bund in a battered condition. 2. All the Scatterable mines were found in the bund in a battered condition. 3. All the peat mines and parts thereof were found in the bund in a battered condition. 4: The webbing caught up in the flail but did not affect the flail performance Comments & Observations After flailing lengthways for six runs Minelifta flailed across the area covered resulting in a deeper cut overall. (See fig 6-46) Page 55 of 101

66 Figure 6-42; AT mines on run 11 Page 56 of 101 Figure 6-43; Scatterable mines and bomblets on run 11

67 Figure 6-44; Minelifta about to flail spikes and webbing lengths Figure 6-45; Minelifta with webbing caught in flails Page 57 of 101

68 Figure 6-46; Minelifta flailing across the first set of runs in the mined area Page 58 of 101

69 This page is intentionally blank Page 59 of 101

70 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description A mined area was laid on clay soil with medium shrub using the AT and peat mines. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). FINISH Logs 200mmm Buried Peat AP Mines Peat AP Mines Flush Surface 2m 2m 2m Run 3 Run 2 Run 1 (AT Mines) START Figure 6-47; General Mine layout Run 12 Page 60 of 101

71 FINISH m 1m 2 1m 1m 1.5m 3 1m m Spoil Line 1m Previous Bund 1 - SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED LC START Results: Figure 6-48; Peat mine layout Run 12(2+3) 1: All three AT mines showed evidence of being hit at least four times. 2: All the AP mines were destroyed except the last one on run 3. 3: The last mine on run 3 was pushed forward over the end point of the run. There is a high probability that it would have been picked up had the end of run procedure been used Comments & Observations None. Page 61 of 101

72 Figure 6-49; Minelifta at start of run 12 Figure 6-50; AP peat mine in thick grass Page 62 of 101

73 Figure 6-51; AT mine after run 12-1 Page 63 of 101

74 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter Run Description An AP mined area was laid on a severely undulating sandy area using plastic mines. Minelifta was required to clear the mined area. (See Below). Direction of Travel Gradient: ' ' 14 45' ' 20 Figure 6-52; Side view of the sandy humps FINISH m 1m 2 1m 1m 1.5m 3 1m m Spoil Line 1m Previous Bund 1 - SURFACE LAID - FLUSH - BURIED LC START Figure 6-53; Mine layout Run 13 Page 64 of 101

75 Results: 1: Minelifta cut straight through the first two humps with three passes. 2: Two mines were pushed into the left-hand spoil. 3: Two mines were pushed into the soft sand. 4: The run was stopped before the last hump because Minelifta had levelled the first two and it was decided that no more useful data would be collected from carrying on Comments & Observations Further tests were carried out using the side of the humps to test to what extent Minelifta could cope with a change in gradient of a side slope whilst flailing. The test showed that Minelifta could tackle a change of sideways gradient. (See fig 6.54) Figure 6-54; Minelifta flailing over humps Page 65 of 101

76 Figure 6-55; Side view of Minelifta flailing over humps, (note gap underneath the cowling ) Figure 6-56; Minelifta on side of humps Page 66 of 101

77 This page is intentionally blank Page 67 of 101

78 Test A5 Inert Minefield Encounter- Urban Environment Run Description The aim of this test was to assess the possible road and hard surface clearance ability of Minelifta. The test was carried out on an old tarmac road. A standard layout of surface laid mines was positioned in the first minefield. In the second minefield, the mines were placed in the same pattern as the first but they were either surface laid or flush buried. In the third minefield, five mines were randomly scattered amongst stones (average diameter of the stones: 200mm). In the fourth was laid a mixture of stones and logs. Finally, a mixture of stones, logs and barbed wire was laid. (See Below). FINISH Stones, logs & Barbwire FINISH m 1m 1m Stones & logs m 1m 10m 10m Surface Surface Stones & & Flush 5 Mines m 1m 1m LC 1.5m - MINE 1 START START Results: Figure 6-57; Mine layout Run 14 1: On the first attempt the flail height was set too high so the flails didn t make contact with the ground. 2. The logs caused a jam at the mouth of Minelifta and were pushed along. This did not stop the operation of the flail. Page 68 of 101

79 3. The concertina barbed wire became completely wrapped up in the flail this also did not stop the operation of the flail. 4. All mines were destroyed Comments & Observations If the problem of depth control can be solved Minelifta would have a road clearance potential. Figure 6-58; Rubble strewn road Page 69 of 101

80 Figure 6-59; Log Barrier Figure 6-60; Clearance of rubble on track Page 70 of 101

81 Figure 6-61; Track after clearance Figure 6-62; Concertina barbed wire tangled around flail rotor Page 71 of 101

82 FLAIL ROTOR BLADE 6.3 Minelifta Phase 2 Survivability The order of the AP blast mine firing s below is not presented in a chronological order but in order of magnitude of charge size Test A6 Static Live Ordnance (AP) 1 st Firing Description Plastic explosive was used to represent the AP mine threat. Two amounts, 35g and 65g, were placed on top of the blade underneath the spoil. These mines were then command detonated, with the foot in the lowered position. Due to time constraints, two mines were set off simultaneously. 35g PE 65g PE Results: Figure 6-63; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.1 65g charge made a small dent on the blade Comments & Observations This had no effect to the structural integrity of the flail unit. Page 72 of 101

83 Figure 6-64; Minelifta with PE changes laid Figure 6-65; Front View of Minelifta during detonation Page 73 of 101

84 FLAIL ROTOR BLADE Test A6 Static Live Ordnance 2 nd Firing Description 95g of plastic explosive and North Korean APP M57 (200g TNT) were used to represent the AP mine threat. The plastic explosive was placed on top of the blade at the cutting edge and underneath the spoil and the APP M57 in the area in-between the flail and the blade. These mines were then command detonated. Due to time constraints, two mines were set off simultaneously. 95g PE APP M Results: Figure 6-66; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.2 95g charge made a small dent on the blade. APP M57 No damage Comments & Observations This had no effect to the structural integrity of the flail unit. Page 74 of 101

85 Figure 6-67; Front View of Minelifta before detonation firing 2 Figure 6-68; Front View of Minelifta during detonation of AP mines in firing 2 Page 75 of 101

86 Figure 6-69; Front View of Minelifta after detonation of AP mines in firing 2 Page 76 of 101

87 This page is intentionally blank Page 77 of 101

88 FLAIL ROTOR BLADE Test A6 Static Live Ordnance 3 rd Firing Description 130g of plastic explosive was used to represent the AP mine threat. The plastic explosive was placed underneath the blade. The mine was then command detonated. 130g PE underneath the blade Results: Figure 6-70; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.3 130g charge blasted a hole through the 6mm base plate. The hole measured 350mm x 150mm x 90mm deep Comments & Observations Although the blade was holed, it was felt that this would not have effected the structural integrity of the flail unit. It could have been repaired with basic welding tools. Page 78 of 101

89 Figure 6-71; AP in place underneath blade Figure 6-72; Hole in underneath of blade Page 79 of 101

90 FLAIL ROTOR BLADE Test A6 Static Live Ordnance 4 th Firing Description A Korean APP M57 (200g TNT) was used to represent the AP mine threat. The mine was placed underneath the left-hand skid. The mine was then command detonated. APP M57 underneath the blade Results: Figure 6-73; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.4 The 200g charge caused scoring and minor damage to the skid Comments & Observations None. Page 80 of 101

91 This page is intentionally blank Page 81 of 101

92 FLAIL ROTOR BLADE Test A6 Static Live Ordnance 5 th Firing Description 95g and 130g of plastic explosive were used to represent the AP mine threat. The 95g plastic explosive was placed in the top louvre and the 130g PE in the area in-between the turnbuckle and the sidewall of Minelifta. These mines were then command detonated. 95g PE in louvre 130g PE In Turnbuckle Results: Figure 6-74; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.5 95g charge broke two shear bolts on the top louvre and broke one shear bolt and split a weld on the lower louvre. 130g No damage Comments & Observations This had no effect to the structural integrity of the flail unit and would have been easily repairable. Page 82 of 101

93 Figure 6-75; PE charge placed in the upper louvres Figure 6-76; Front View of Minelifta during detonation of firing 4 Page 83 of 101

94 Figure 6-77; Close up of the turnbuckle after detonation Figure 6-78; Close up of the louvre after detonation showing minor damage and bolt sheared Page 84 of 101

95 This page is intentionally blank Page 85 of 101

96 FLAIL ROTOR BLADE Test A6 Static Live Ordnance 6 th Firing (Fragmentation Mines) Description Due to the nature of fragmentation mines it was agreed not to subject the MK2 cowling complete with the Prime Mover (on loan from Komatsu) to this threat so the MK1 cowling was used. A live fragmentation stick mine representing a PMR-4, was command detonated at a distance in front and to the side of Minelifta. The Prime Mover was 2m 2m replaced by witness screens. Figure 6-79; Plan view of Minelifta firing No.6 (Fragmentation Mines) Test 1: Frontal Attack The Mine was a PMR-4 (200g of TNT) The Mine was positioned 2m in front of the blade. Test 2: Side Attack The Mine was a PMR-4 (200g of TNT) The Mine was positioned 2m to the LHS and, in line with the front of the blade Results: Test 1: Frontal Attack 3 strikes to front louvre, 3 to inside of rear louvre, several around the soil shoot area. Superficial damage only. Page 86 of 101

97 Test 2: Side Attack The side of Minelifta had shrapnel damage. The damage was superficial and concentrated around the turnbuckle area. By examination of the witness screens, it was seen that the Prime Mover unit would have sustained shrapnel damage mainly to the engine cowling but also to the drivers cab and other areas Comments & Observations The side of Minelifta was made up of mild steel and armour plates. There was noticeably less damage to the armour plate but mild steel plate would still be an adequate fabrication material. Page 87 of 101

98 Figure 6-80; Front View of Minelifta before detonation of the first stake mine Figure 6-81; Front View of Minelifta during detonation of the first stake mine Page 88 of 101

99 Figure 6-82; Side View of Minelifta during detonation of the second stake mine Figure 6-83; Side view of Minelifta after detonation of the second stake mine showing shrapnel holes in the witness screen Page 89 of 101

100 FLAIL ROTOR BLADE Test A6 Static Live Ordnance 7 th Firing (AT Mine) Description A Yugoslav TMA-4 mine (5.5kg TNT) was used to represent the AT mine threat. As with the fragmentation mines the MK1 Cowling was used. The mine was placed in the area in-between the blade and the flail rotor of Minelifta. This mine was then command detonated. TMA Results: Figure 6-84; General Front View of Minelifta Minelifta s cowling was blown apart, of the remaining structure there was evidence of cracked welds and severe buckling. Shear bolts were found up to 100m away and large pieces were found up to 55m away. Three of the louvres ended up to the rear of Minelifta at an angle which possibly would have brought them into contact with the drivers cab and probably would have brought them into contact with the engine cowling or other parts of the Prime Mover unit Comments & Observations The stated ability of Minelifta was to clear AP mines. During a mine clearance task, one cannot legislate for the unexpected i.e. an AT mine or similar UXO buried in an AP minefield. With this in mind, Minelifta should be designed to offer crew survivability for larger detonations. In an operational situation, a failure such as this would not only pose logistic problems with the recovery of Minelifta and its associated parts but would also contaminate the surrounding area with metal debris. This could slow up the mine clearance and QA process. The cowling is designed to vent blast. Under attack from the AT mine adequate venting of the blast did not occur, this is an area that needs to be addressed. Page 90 of 101

101 Figure 6-85; Front View of Minelifta before Detonation of AT Mine Page 91 of 101

102 Figure 6-86; Front View of Minelifta during Detonation of AT Mine Figure 6-87; Front View of Minelifta after Detonation of AT Mine Page 92 of 101

103 25m 50m KEY - Minelifta louvre - Minelifta side pannel Figure 6-88; Plan of debris after AT mine detonation Page 93 of 101