Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Miniature Bomb, Heavyweight Punch

You hear a lot of big claims in this industry. So when I read about a 31-inch, 64-pound weapon that's supposed to have more killing power than a 1,000-pound cluster bomb, I was more than a little skeptical.

After all, a typical cluster bomb distributes over two hundred BLU-97 bomblets over a wide area. Together they produce thirty times as many shrapnel fragments as the 64-pound mini-munition, Textron Systems' Clean Lightweight Area Weapon. It was hard to see how CLAW could compete.

claw combo.JPG

But it turns out that CLAW can be awfully deadly, in its own right. After ejection, CLAW descends by parachute, and a proximity sensor detonates it sixteen feet above the ground. That means its fragments get dispersed far and wide. In contrast, the BLU-97 only goes off on contact with the ground, which sends a lot of fragments into the dirt – instead of into targets. (Check out this video to see what CLAW does to a 16 by 12 foot target.)

The design of the warhead casing helps, too. It's a steel cylinder scored on the inside, so that it forms diamond or arrowhead shaped fragments, over two thousand of them. A special proprietary technique is used to cut the pattern on the warhead casing, creating fragments which are bullet-sized (about 7 grams/114 grains) and effective over a very wide radius. BLU-97 fragments are much smaller (about 30 grains) and less effective.

The explosive filling of CLAW is PAX-21, which is both more powerful and more stable than previous explosives. The combination of explosion and fragments produces thorough coverage of a circular area over 140 yards across, effective against targets including personnel, soft vehicles, parked aircraft and anti-aircraft sites. Textron Systems have precisely quantified this performance with ground tests, and their claim about its effectiveness looks like a strong one.

CLAW’s small size means that strike aircraft could carry it in large numbers, but at present it’s being marketed as the ideal weapon for killer drones. Even something as large as a Predator drone can only carry two Hellfire missiles. For the same weight you could carry several CLAWs, but it also means that even smaller UAVs could be armed for the first time. The development of this type of miniature munition – and even smaller weapons are in the pipeline – brings the possibility of large numbers of armed UAVs on the battlefield for the first time.

(CLAW is not effective against heavy armor, but the same GPS-guided Universal Aerial Delivery Dispenser which delivers it can also be loaded with a BLU-108 anti-tank weapon with four target-seeking warheads.)

But perhaps the most impressive thing about CLAW is how much work has gone into making sure it only explodes when it’s meant to. There is a triple-redundant fuzing system – the proximity fuze, a ground contact fuze, and a time delay. If all of these fail, then the battery dissipates within seconds and the munition is inert. It’s not just unexploded, but unexplodable.

You could hit the CLAW with a hammer, run over it with a tractor or put it in a fire, and it will not detonate. You could take it apart without any personal risk. The insensitive explosive really is insensitive.

“The only way you could make it explode would be to take it to a laboratory,” says Richard D. Sterchele, Textron’s Business Development Manager for Smart Weapons.

This means that unexploded CLAWs cannot be turned into IEDs. Iraq is awash with weaponry, but in other conflicts like Vietnam guerrillas have used unexploded bombs as a major source of explosives.

More importantly, it does not leave hazardous unexploded bomblets scattered around. The failure rate of BLU-97 is widely quoted at around 6%, so each CBU-103 leaves about a dozen potentially lethal bomblets to be cleared up. It is hard to over-emphasize just how dangerous these are; according to the USMC’s Multi-Service Procedures for Operations in UXO Environment:

“Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity Studies show 40 percent of the duds on the ground are hazardous and for each encounter with an unexploded submunition there is a 13 percent probability of detonation…Thus, even though an unexploded submunition is run over, kicked, stepped on, or otherwise disturbed, and did not detonate, it is not safe. Handling the unexploded submunition may eventually result in arming and subsequent detonation.”

In one incident in 1991, seven members of the 27th Engineer Battalion were killed during operations to clear a runway at As Salam when a pile of ‘dud’ BLU-97’s exploded.

In the Cold War scenario, where the enemy was an invading Soviet horde, unexploded bomblets may not have been seen as a problem. But in scenarios like Iraq and Afghanistan where US engineers are likely to have to deal with them, the argument for a ‘clean’ weapon like CLAW is a compelling one.

It remains to be seen whether the Pentagon will take up CLAW, which is a private company initiative. Live CLAW munition tests from operational UAVs are being conducted by the U.S. Air Force and Army over the summer 2006. It’s a fraction of the cost of a cluster bombs, but the saving in lives could be much more important. But in the world of defense procurement, unfortunately it’s not always that simple.

-- David Hambling

Latest Comments

www.ilovetrade.com

One of the world's largest online B2B marketplace.Find quality Products,Trade Leads,Manufacturers,Suppliers,Buyers and Wholesalers.Effective trade site to lead your company to succeed in global business.

E-mail:lovetrade@126.com

Skype:ilovetrade

Posted by: leo at August 2, 2008 6:02 AM



New - The Triple Action Clean Bomb!

FIRST The explosive blast loosens dirt, grime and insurgents!

SECOND Computer-designed shrapnel scrubs the whole area!

THIRD The Zirconium incendiary sterilizes and leaves everything sparkling clean!

Available in Original, Pine, Lemon Fresh and new Fragrant Napalm.

Posted by: Mister Kleen at June 29, 2006 2:35 PM



"Given that the bomb is dropped with a detonator capable of initiating the explosives, I find the claim that one can't reuse the explosive from a dud to be pretty thin."

The explosive fill PAX-21 is insensitive munition (IM) rated, which means it cannot be detonated easily and requires special fuzing. The fuzing system of the CLAW becomes inert shortly after the weapon is released. So insurgents would either need a supply of high-tech fuzing devices, or lab equipment capable of ractivating the original fuze. Either way, it's unlikely to happen.

"And one thing unstated, what is the cost? Should it be more or less than a cluster bomb? (More sophisticated materials and electronics, but fewer parts/detonators/etc?)"

Cost is something like $5k per CLAW. Last time the USAF bought CBU-103 I believe they were around $30k, they'd be more expensive now; buying 200 fuzes, 200 charges, 200 fragmentation cases etc does cost a bit.

"Could this design be used as the basis for better anti-aircraft weapons as well? "

There may be a better approach to this. Watch out for a future instalment in DefenseTech.


Posted by: David Hambling at June 29, 2006 12:42 PM


what about the civilians who pick up and handle unexploded ordnance, your article seems to focus entirely on the soldiers who have some measure of armor and protection and says very little to the children who play in war zones littered with cluster bombs.

perhaps CLAW will rememdy this, perhaps not. but the far more compelling argument for this weapon to me is clearly that unexploded ordnance is not a threat to the civilian population, either accidently or retooled as an IED.

Posted by: tom at June 29, 2006 11:58 AM


Another interesting question: Could this design be used as the basis for better anti-aircraft weapons as well? (Well, against aircraft other than A-10s that is)

And one thing unstated, what is the cost? Should it be more or less than a cluster bomb? (More sophisticated materials and electronics, but fewer parts/detonators/etc?)

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at June 29, 2006 10:03 AM


» View All 6 Comments

» Post a Comment