Transport
The
most common mechanical assistance in Humanitarian Demining is
the ubiquitous 4x4 truck - from basic ex-army Landrovers to
fully equipped Landcruisers. They are not just transportation.
The picture above shows one being used as a display board for
Mine Risk Education posters. While being the most favoured vehicle
for ex-pat travel, they are also often converted to serve as site
ambulances.
Despite
the IMAS requirements, ambulances vary from unconverted Landrovers
and open trucks to purpose adapted vehicle. The makeshift approach of some groups is probably because
accidents are so rare that they resent investing in dedicated
vehicles. Occasionally, helicopters may also be used for MEDEVAC but this usually only occurs where there is a
helicopter facility provided by a UN MAC. In Cambodia, CMAC
have found it cost effective to contract a helicopter service.
Depending
on the number of people involved, the actual deminers may
deploy in 4x4s. When teams are large, they may deploy in trucks
of buses.
This
picture shows the demining group MCPA deploying in buses in
Afghanistan.
And
this shows a demining team preparing to leave for work in Angola.
In
a very few cases, the deminers may be transported in MPVs (Mine
Protected Vehicles) - but usually only when the MPV has another
use in the mined area. Recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq
and Syria have led to a demand for many more MPVs, primarily because the
deminers may be seen as a legitimate target by some
of the combatants. This is not normal in HD.
These
pictures show the Zimbabwe army deploying in an MPV - but they
were working in an AP mine area and used the vehicle because
it was one of the few that was running rather than for protection.
Developed during the Rhodesian war for independence by the defenders,
notice the vehicle's 'V' shaped sides and the absence of mudguards.
These features are discussed later under Part 3, Armouring.
Although
it is not normal in HD for the deminers to be deliberately targeted,
mine accidents with 4x4s do occur.
A
Nissan after hitting an AT mine at slow speed (in reverse while parking) in
Angola.
A
Toyota after clipping an AT mine with a rear wheel in Afghanistan.
Another
Toyota, this time in Angola. The vehicle was fitted with 'after-market'
armour floor blankets - that were entirely ineffective. (You
are looking at a crushed doorway.)
A
Landrover in Eritrea… the AT mine burst it open. (The wheel
at the rear is actually attached to the back door.)
And
a HMVEE in Afghanistan.
These
pictures show that there are explosive risks involved in merely
getting to work…. But there are many more normal road traffic accidents
involving deminers than explosive events. In many countries
there is a good argument for using MPVs whenever possible, but only because
the occupants would be safer in a conventional traffic accident
as well. While they are expensive, reconditioned MPVs probably
cost less than you expect, but the running costs can be very high.
Clearing
undergrowth
The
most common reason for a deminers death while engaged in mine-clearance
(as opposed to stockpile destruction and handling ordnance)
is while cutting undergrowth in areas where there are bounding
fragmentation mines. This is not only because of the threat
from tripwires, but also the threat from tilt-sensitive fuzes
standing up amid the undergrowth.
This
picture shows the fuze of a PROM-1
The
most common form of mechanical assistance to the actual deminer
is the clearing of undergrowth in advance of their work. This
may be done with 'cutters', 'mulchers' or 'flails' attached to large or
small machines. The main difference is that cutters and mulchers are not designed to impact the
ground. Most flails are designed to strike the ground, and some
cannot be deployed without doing so because the flail-head overruns
unless there are impacts to slow it down.
The
first use of a dedicated machine made for HD vegetation cutting
was in 1995/6 in Cambodia when the HALO Trust used a Russian
tractor with a hedge-cutter on a boom arm. One side of the
tractor was 'armoured' and the machine cut a swathe alongside
a safe area. The cutting head was supported on sacrificial
wooden skids and when I met them, the skids had not yet needed to
be replaced. The cutter had knocked the fuzes from fragmentation
mines and the skids had not detonated surface pressure mines.
The disadvantage of the tractor was that the deminers could
not work in a conventional manner by cutting well-spaced lanes
out from the safe lane. None-the-less, the machine could deploy
itself over bad roads. It was the first of several low-cost
versions and it was used a lot.
The
second known use of a dedicated machine involved the NGO MgM in Angola
who mounted a brush-cutter on a boom arm attached to an MPV.
Using
off-the-shelf parts and a recovered MPV (from the days of South
Africa's involvement in the conflict), the idea was sound.
Even
so, it had the same limitation as the HALO tractor because it
could only cut a swathe in front of the deminers, although that
swathe was deeper. The MPVs used by this group had conventional
tyres and wheels, so could not be driven over a suspect area even when only small anti personnel blast mines were anticipated. The
cost of one of these vehicles new means that they have not been
sold as vegetation cutters to any commercial companies - which
implies that they are not commercially cost-effective.
The above is a DOK-ING rotary cutter that has been widely used in the Balkans. Several
other variants are commercially available, many with optional other
implements on the hydraulic arm.
The
PRO MAC BDM48, for example, is also used to engage the ground.
Flailing
undergrowth
Flails
that were designed to engage the ground and try to detonate
mines can sometimes be used without striking the ground - and
can make effective vegetation cutters. However, their very high
cost does not make them attractive. The largest commercial demining
group in Africa found it cheaper to make its own flail than
to import one from elsewhere.
Their
improvised flail was used throughout Africa
and the Balkans.
Remotely-controlled
and mine protected mini-flails became popular because they
were cheaper to buy and run, and could be more versatile in the
field. Although usually designed to strike the ground and detonate
pressure devices, their inability to do this thoroughly has
led to many groups using them primarily in a vegetation removal
role.
A
few cannot survive detonating a large anti personnel blast mine. This negates
the advantage of remote control because if the machine cannot
enter a suspect area, it may as well be manually controlled.
This
is one such machine, and despite being hyped around
the world, it did not sell - perhaps because the price tag approached
a quarter of a million dollars, but mainly because it could not enter a suspect area with confidence that it could return after running over a small blast mine.
This
is the first mini-flail - which was developed for the US military.
This flail is very small, but its confused Milspec
meant that it was underpowered and had very limited utility.
Unfortunately, its full potential was not realised via a process
of sensible refinement. Behind it you can see the CECOM NVESD
mini-deminer, which is little more than a platform for developing
remote controls. Its design is impractical and unreliable. Given
that there was never a stated need for such an expensive toy,
it is no surprise that they never sold. Their flail could have been different, but they missed
an opportunity and it was not taken seriously enough by their bureaucrats.
Instead
the US decided to support a UK built mini-flail first known
as the 'Beaver' but then renamed the 'Tempest'. It had already
been funded by UK charities and the British government, then
got a further injection of support from the US taxpayer.
Here
is a Tempest I encountered in Bosnia. With a narrow
wheelbase and heavy armour, it was prone to falling over on
anything but flat ground. It also did not have the power to work up any incline at all. The 'after-thought' armouring
on the sides made the engine hard to cool - and one overheated
so badly that it caught fire and burned-out in Bosnia.
Without
addressing the fundamental problems with the design, the developers
fitted fire-extinguishers and an alarm that sounded when it
overheated.
Here
is a Tempest I encountered in Mozambique later. In the cool season and in an area of flat pasture land, it could only
work for a few hours in the morning - and even then the overheating
alarm went off regularly. Too
heavy and with fundamental design errors, it was limited to
cutting grass beside roads. This is probably why they did not sell well - especially as the cost of a low-loader with a crane had to be added to the already high purchase cost.
Those I saw working had been donated by those
who funded the development - keen to make themselves look effective.
A few NGOs were persuaded to buy them - and regretted it. The latest version is
reported to have overcome some of the more serious problems in earlier
models but the whole concept has serious flaws.
Other
attempts were made in the USA and in Switzerland with the Hurricane
(not for sale) and the Digger D1 or Digger D-2 (pictured in Sudan).
The
Bozena (below) made a name for itself - (its use
to strike the ground before manual clearance in Lebanon was
cited as the cause of several accidents when damaged mines became
more sensitive) - while other manufacturers adopted a name designed to appeal to the public.
Such as the
'Diana'...
The
most successful mini-flail range did not get any government
support for its development. It is the Dok-Ing flails made in
Croatia.
Various models have sold to commercial, NGO and military
groups, including the U.S. army. When used just for cutting the undergrowth, it can save
considerable time and remove any tripwire threat. Further, its
use against the very shallow AP mine threat in Croatia
is claimed to have been very effective. The MV-4 model shown above is popular but the manufacturers oversell its performance on their website - www.dok-ing.hr and present it as a 'clearance' tool. It is in fact an area-preparation tool. See the SOPS for its use here.
The MV-4 at work in Sri Lanka, where it tackled heavy undergrowth and made breaches through the AP mine belts (although very rarely detonating any at all).
Tree
cutting
A
need to cut trees was presumed - and various approaches tried.
In fact, it is rarely necessary or desirable to cut mature trees
which always have some value to the local population (for wood
if not for fruit-crops).
The
'Tree-shear' developed for forestry was adapted by Hydrema for
a demining NGO with R&D money.
The
picture above was taken while it was being demonstrated for
me. In fact, it was little used because its use added another
action to the demining task with little benefit, and (once again)
it could not drive onto an unsafe area. Even with a long
reach, its utility was very limited and I know of no demining
groups that have purchased one commercially.
This
huge Hitachi machine was billed as being capable of chewing
through the biggest trees - and also having a blast-proof cutting
head. When it was donated to Afghanistan, it was soon broken
and it was found that it had been constructed using materials
that could not be readily repaired in-country. The cutting head cannot survive an AT blast without severe damage, of course.
Similar machines have been donated to Cambodia.....
Where the mess they leave after cutting can make their use more trouble than its worth.
High
purchase and maintenance cost, coupled with their size limiting
access, has made these machines not cost-effective for purchase,
although they may be attractive for occasional hire.
Clearing
rubble
Around
damaged buildings, mines and ordnance may be buried deeply in
collapsed rubble. The Afghans were the first to deploy armoured
back-hoe machines to lift and spread the rubble for manual deminers
to search through.
Also
useful for clearing ditches and irrigation canals, the system
has the advantage of using a commercially available machine
that is usually well supported for spares and not loaded with
huge development costs.
Armoured back-hoes have been used in many countries, and most notably by SARVATRA and NPA in Sri Lanka with a vegetation ripper and rake attachment to prepare the ground for manual deminers.
Using converted plant machinery, costs were very low and the development of an effective vegetation removal and raking head made these machines very attractive. See the Arjun demining system for more information. See the SOPS for its use here.
One other way to cut undergrowth and keep costs low is to use hand-held machines. These can only be safely deployed where there is confidence that tripwires and protruding fuzes present no threat - but this is increasingly the case as mined areas age, tripwires disintegrate and fuzes atrophy.
This petrol driven 'Weed-whacker' was being used in Cambodia.
A similar cutter being used by SARVATRA in Sri Lanka. The reach is limited, but low-cost and ease of use can give it significant advantages when used within obvious constraints.
Carrying
detector arrays
Machines
have been used to carry detector arrays for more than fifty years - with
their success largely being limited to working on roads and
looking for large targets (metal-cased AT mines). The advantage
of using a machine is covering a wide area quickly, but the
speed makes the detection and pinpointing of small items impractical.
On roads, the normal debris of human passage means that there
is often a lot of small metal anyway, and in some cases it is
decided that this can be safely ignored.
The
first machine developed to carry mine-detector pans along roads
was the Rhodesian Pookie. Used within 24 hours of the mines being
laid, and driven by people who often spotted the ground disturbance
visually before passing over it, the Pookie had considerable
success. Using VHF to detect ground disturbance, the Pookie's limitations were an inability to find mines that had been concealed for any time, an inability to
locate anti-personnel mines at all, and some difficulty negotiating
inclines in wet conditions.
The
KIMS system using a large Ebinger array on the front of an MPV
is a more modern replacement using metal-detection technology. With sophisticated GPS recording systems,
large areas could be scanned far more quickly than by hand. Of
course, the reliability was limited to the skill of the operator,
and all signals still had to be investigated by manual deminers.
This system was modified and renamed the WADS and although scheduled for use in Angola for road search, it was never properly deployed.
Some
machines are developed specifically to carry other detector
heads, or adapted for the purpose.
This
ARTS machine is meant to carry a range of attachments, including
a broad detector array (I do not know of any real deployment of this machine).
This
'Chubby' copies the Pookie layout and carries the detector pans
between the wheel-sets. What it has in common with many other
detector carriers is that the base vehicle is an MPV - raising
the question of why it should need to be protected against mine-blast
if its arrays could genuinely detect mines in real time? And if it cannot
detect them until after it has passed them, perhaps some thought
should be given to using wheels that would not be disabled by
the smallest AP mine blast?
The
answer in some cases is that the machine needs to be an MPV
because it must pass over the mines before detecting them -
like this CASSPIR that was used to drag a VAMIIDS detection system.
The CASSPIR could have steel wheels or solid tyres fitted before it started work
(pneumatic tyres were just used for transit), but most carriers
do not have an option of genuinely anti-personnel mine proof wheels or tracks.
With all vehicle mounted detector arrays, the vehicle's speed can lead to signals being missed and the large size of the array requires manual deminers to pinpoint just where beneath the array a signal was, then excavate it with the usual manual demining caution. What may look like a good way of searching linear tasks without undergrowth has always turned out to be an expensive extra that is easy to use in a way that misses mines.
Carrying water
Hard ground slows deminers down, and there is some evidence that it can make accidental initiations more likely, so it is fairly common to use water to soften the work area. Sometimes the water is pumped around the site from perimeter tanks using long hoses and expensive pumps given by donors. Usually it is taken to the site in a tanker and carried to the lanes by hand because the tanker is too big to drive along the safe-lanes that give access to a work area.
This low-tech solution has a steel tank and pump that can load and dispense water efficiently. Its footprint is considerably narrower than a two metre wide safe lane, so it can get around the worksite without risk. Surprisingly, it even has a reverse gear. Made in Sri Lanka, it's price using new off-the-shelf parts was less than US$3.5k.
Conclusions
You
may have noticed that the only real success stories in mechanical
assistance have been achieved without relying on R&D finance. The best
MPVs are adapted combat vehicles already in existence
(pioneered in Southern Africa). The best mini-flail was developed
to meet a local need before looking for an international market
- and its tracks are capable of withstanding AP blast mine detonations
(from those mines found in Croatia), allowing it to cut undergrowth
over a wide area in front of the deminers. The cheapest ground preparation tool was made by SARVATRA (an Indian NGO) using converted plant machinery in Sri Lanka. In general, research
and development efforts that receive government funding tend
to be obliged to stay on a fixed development path even when it later
becomes obvious that the path leads in the wrong direction.
Some of the machines featured above have been sent to demining
groups around the world - but at the donor's expense. They are not commercially viable. Often they are entirely ill conceived
but sometimes they are just too big. The only time that large
machines can really achieve cost-effectiveness is when they
are pooled and hired out as a resource to
a number of demining groups active in the same region - and even then, a large size and weight can really inhibit access to sites.
Despite
many calls over the years for a genuinely small vegetation-clearance
machine (a 'bush-whacker' on steroids), almost all of the
so called 'small' machines that are currently available
weigh more than 3000 kg - and the current market price for them starts
at around $150k. They are too heavy and too expensive, especially
when the cost of their transporters are added to the machine's cost. Often, running and maintenance
costs are also prohibitively high.
What
I would like to see is a radio-controlled 'micro' machine -
capable of being transported in the load-bay of a pickup truck
so that no new transporters have to be bought. The machine should
be low-cost, able to survive AP mine detonations (which can
be achieved by venting and informed materials selection rather
than by adding much armour-plate) and must be field serviceable.
In the absence of that, the APT machine made by the University of Genoa in Italy is a machine I would buy if I were a programme manager today. Based on a proven commercial tractor, It can be driven to site, can shrug off AP mine detonations, is cheap to buy, run and maintain, and is easy to use. But there are no donors to put one into the field and prove its value, so there are none in use today. See a wmv video about the APT here. Yes, I did the voice-over but no, I do not get a cut for a sale).
Next
Return to Introducing demining.