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

Kinder, Gentler Thermobarics

Thermobarics are known as some of the most ferocious weapons an army can have. But not all of 'em are about death and destruction.

Stun1.jpgThe U.S. Department of Justice, for example, is funding a thermobaric stun grenade. Known as the "Fuel Air Diversionary Device," it's more powerful -- but less dangerous -- than existing flash-bang devices. The munition doesn't produce any hazardous shrapnel, and the 'near field' blast isn't as intense as condensed explosive.

Developed by Sandia National Laboratories, the grenade expels a cloud of fine particles through vents with the aid of a gas generator. This fuel-air cloud then deflagrates -- rather than detonates. The explosion is at subsonic speed, so the overpressure is much less than the lethal thermobaric devices discussed previously. However, the project requirements specify "the overpressure energetic shock wave will be sufficient to knock down a man of average size and weight," so don’t think that it’s underpowered.

when the round bursts, flake aluminum is ejected and ignited to create a brilliant flash that is comparable to looking directly into the sun for 60 milliseconds but causes no permanent damage to a person’s vision. In addition, the flake aluminum poses no appreciable burning hazard. It cools to the ambient temperature within a fraction of a second. The acoustics, he said, reach a level of 170 decibels, but again, cause no permanent damage.

Maybe. 130 Dbs of sound is physically painful - 170 Db is even worse.

At least the thing isn't very likely to go off accidentally. The grenade's filler is not explosive per se, and can’t explode while it’s contained. What's more, sympathetic detonation is not a problem, and it can’t be set off by sparks, heat or impact. The well-known ability of thermobaric blast to 'flow' through apertures and around corners will enhance its effectiveness inside buildings.

While the grenade itself is an interesting step forward, we may see a lot more devices based on this technology. The makers say that by altering the variables "metallic fuels, organic fuels, blends, particle size and morphology, gas generator output, etc." – a wide variety of different outputs can be achieved. The device could be optimised for flash, or the blast can be of tailored strength and duration to maximise its effectiveness, depending on whether you want to dazzle, deafen or just knock them off their feet.

It is also significant that this is highly scalable. At a presentation the European less-lethal weapon conference last year, Mark C. Grubelich of Sandia included a comment about "devices demonstrated with 10’s of milligrams to 10’s of kilograms of fuel."

This suggests a number of novel devices. At the lower end you could have an explosive baton round that would produce a non-lethal blast on contact – this would get over the usual problem with kinetic rounds that they are either dangerous at point blank range or ineffective further out.
Twenty grams of flake aluminium produced a fireball two metres in diameter brighter than the sun, engulfing the target in a blinding, deafening but harmless explosion.

A hand-thrown device containing more fuel could fill a room or corridor, or perhaps (given the increased effectivenss of thermobarics indoors where there are walls and ceilings to reflect and amplify its power) neutralize a small building.

Or you could have a larger wide-area flash-bang bomb which could subdue a crowd, or at least give them some non-lethal "shock & awe." The stun effect should last long enough to move in and grab the hardcore violent members of the crowd while they are too stunned to resist.

A big part of the secret to tailored thermobarics is nanotechnology to produce very precisely graded particles, a topic explored in my book Weapons Grade. It can mean the difference between damaging buildings, demolishing them, simply killing the occupants -- or perhaps just simply stunning them.

-- David Hambling

Latest Comments

Remember the decibel scale is a log scale as well.

Posted by: Charles at August 6, 2006 1:28 PM



The makers view on possible health effects:

"The measured acoustic output of 178 decibel and light intensity of 2.2 million candlas at one foot, do not appear to be high enough for permanent injury, while both remain high enough for effective diversion. According to literature, 5 eardrum rupture begins to occur at 185 dB. In order to establish medical thresholds for both permanent hearing and visual damage, extensive human testing would be necessary."

Posted by: David Hambling at August 4, 2006 4:45 AM


fronten, if you are using Firefox, there's a nice extension that will show a little icon depicting the type of the link when you mouse over the link: TargetAlert.

Posted by: bespoke at August 3, 2006 1:27 PM


After search minutes of googling, the concensus generally seems to be that 170dB, even for a millisecond, would cause irreversible hearing loss.

In fact, some websites say that even with hearing protection, anything above 140dB should be avoided. If I recall correctly, most hearing protection devices only "block" about 30 to 40dB.

I wouldn't want to be in a "free speech zone" when the 10kg version is used for "non-lethal 'shock & awe'" - hearing protectors or not.

Posted by: bespoke at August 3, 2006 1:25 PM


writers, please flag your media links with an appropriate file type tag like (PDF) or such..

Posted by: fronten at August 3, 2006 1:20 PM


» View All 6 Comments

» Post a Comment