Are military vehicles/aircraft outfitted with self-destruct mechanisms?

[erikiksaz]

After seeing/hearing about the downed choppers, predator, and the m1a1 tanks, i've been thinking--do we equip them to self-detonate when they're disabled? Wouldn't our technology be protected by any means possible?

 

[Nyical]

As far as I know, If they cannot repair them on the spot or retrieve the vehicles they tend to either call in a Air strike or blow them up themselves, though I could be wrong.

 

[MadRat]

Ever hear the term "sapper"?

 

[mastertech01]

We prefer to recover the vehicles and repair them. Replacements are not cheap and there is not an endless supply. Of the vehicles that cant be repaired we may bring them to cannibalization points to use for spare parts for running vehicles. As for downed aircraft or combat vehicles in a hot zone, if they are accessible to the enemy and/or damaged badly as mentioned before, they are usually destroyed by air craft or scuttled by thier crews. It sure was a shame to see that Apache which was in near pristine condition have to be bombed last week, but it had sensitive weapons systems and security breachable equipment onboard and was in enemy hands. It was imperative to destroy that one for sure.

 

[erikiksaz]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Ever hear the term "sapper"?

A military engineer who specializes in sapping and other field fortification activities.

A military engineer who lays, detects, and disarms mines.

From dictionary.com. Not sure, i'm guessing that you mean the sappers blow up the stuff?

 

[erikiksaz]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
We prefer to recover the vehicles and repair them. Replacements are not cheap and there is not an endless supply. Of the vehicles that cant be repaired we may bring them to cannibalization points to use for spare parts for running vehicles. As for downed aircraft or combat vehicles in a hot zone, if they are accessible to the enemy and/or damaged badly as mentioned before, they are usually destroyed by air craft or scuttled by thier crews. It sure was a shame to see that Apache which was in near pristine condition have to be bombed last week, but it had sensitive weapons systems and security breachable equipment onboard and was in enemy hands. It was imperative to destroy that one for sure.

But aren't our Predators also incredibly advanced as well? Did they plan to take that out as well?

 

[MadRat]

I mean the engineers that have the job to plant explosive charges.

 

[erikiksaz]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I mean the engineers that have the job to plant explosive charges.

gotcha

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: erikiksaz

Originally posted by: mastertech01
We prefer to recover the vehicles and repair them. Replacements are not cheap and there is not an endless supply. Of the vehicles that cant be repaired we may bring them to cannibalization points to use for spare parts for running vehicles. As for downed aircraft or combat vehicles in a hot zone, if they are accessible to the enemy and/or damaged badly as mentioned before, they are usually destroyed by air craft or scuttled by thier crews. It sure was a shame to see that Apache which was in near pristine condition have to be bombed last week, but it had sensitive weapons systems and security breachable equipment onboard and was in enemy hands. It was imperative to destroy that one for sure.

But aren't our Predators also incredibly advanced as well? Did they plan to take that out as well?

It would depend on whether the equipment onboard would be of use to the enemy or in condition to be used after a crash. Im sure they would plan on destruction if they deem it necessary. The ones I saw were pretty smashed up already.

 

[arcitech2]

My little brother is out there right now, fixing the Bradley's and M1's that need it. That's what we do, go back and get what we can, blow the rest to H***, along with the Iraqis trying to scavange them.:|

 

[Marshallj]

I got blasted for posting this idea the other day. Some limp wristed people were crying about "women and children" that were near our downed equipment. Apparently calling in an airstrike to blow it up is ok with them, but putting an explosive device on them is not OK.

 

[erikiksaz]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: erikiksaz

Originally posted by: mastertech01
We prefer to recover the vehicles and repair them. Replacements are not cheap and there is not an endless supply. Of the vehicles that cant be repaired we may bring them to cannibalization points to use for spare parts for running vehicles. As for downed aircraft or combat vehicles in a hot zone, if they are accessible to the enemy and/or damaged badly as mentioned before, they are usually destroyed by air craft or scuttled by thier crews. It sure was a shame to see that Apache which was in near pristine condition have to be bombed last week, but it had sensitive weapons systems and security breachable equipment onboard and was in enemy hands. It was imperative to destroy that one for sure.

But aren't our Predators also incredibly advanced as well? Did they plan to take that out as well?

It would depend on whether the equipment onboard would be of use to the enemy or in condition to be used after a crash. Im sure they would plan on destruction if they deem it necessary. The ones I saw were pretty smashed up already.

Really? The video where it landed in water... hmm, just thinking about it, it looked as if it landed on the coastline. Are there any coastlines in Iraq? I've never been near a river either, but would river's edge resemble a beach/coastline? Now i'm confused.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I got blasted for posting this idea the other day. Some limp wristed people were crying about "women and children" that were near our downed equipment. Apparently calling in an airstrike to blow it up is ok with them, but putting an explosive device on them is not OK.

Well if you are referring to making a self destruct mechanism on them then I can only ask, how would you like knowing you are driving around a time bomb? Never knowing if the self destruct would malfunction and blow you to kingdom come, or some nitwit would accidently trigger it. Its way too impracticle and dangerous. Better to leave it to demolition teams or air crews. IMHO

 

[erikiksaz]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I got blasted for posting this idea the other day. Some limp wristed people were crying about "women and children" that were near our downed equipment. Apparently calling in an airstrike to blow it up is ok with them, but putting an explosive device on them is not OK.

What about detonation systems that speak in their native language? "The sytem will self-destruct in 5..4..3..2....1"

 

[erikiksaz]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I got blasted for posting this idea the other day. Some limp wristed people were crying about "women and children" that were near our downed equipment. Apparently calling in an airstrike to blow it up is ok with them, but putting an explosive device on them is not OK.

Well if you are referring to making a self destruct mechanism on them then I can only ask, how would you like knowing you are driving around a time bomb? Never knowing if the self destruct would malfunction and blow you to kingdom come, or some nitwit would accidently trigger it. Its way too impracticle and dangerous. Better to leave it to demolition teams or air crews. IMHO

Ahh yes, that is very reasonable. I'm still confused about the predator though--it's unmanned!

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: mastertech01



Well if you are referring to making a self destruct mechanism on them then I can only ask, how would you like knowing you are driving around a time bomb? Never knowing if the self destruct would malfunction and blow you to kingdom come, or some nitwit would accidently trigger it. Its way too impracticle and dangerous. Better to leave it to demolition teams or air crews. IMHO

How would that be any different than lugging around a bunch of bombs under your wings? When do you see them detonating prematurely? Or carrying around hand grenades?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: erikiksaz

Really? The video where it landed in water... hmm, just thinking about it, it looked as if it landed on the coastline. Are there any coastlines in Iraq? I've never been near a river either, but would river's edge resemble a beach/coastline? Now i'm confused.

Yeah, Iraq has some coastline near its port cities like Umm Qasar.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: erikiksaz

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I got blasted for posting this idea the other day. Some limp wristed people were crying about "women and children" that were near our downed equipment. Apparently calling in an airstrike to blow it up is ok with them, but putting an explosive device on them is not OK.

Well if you are referring to making a self destruct mechanism on them then I can only ask, how would you like knowing you are driving around a time bomb? Never knowing if the self destruct would malfunction and blow you to kingdom come, or some nitwit would accidently trigger it. Its way too impracticle and dangerous. Better to leave it to demolition teams or air crews. IMHO

Ahh yes, that is very reasonable. I'm still confused about the predator though--it's unmanned!

The predator is primarily a spying device, and its electronics would likely be damaged beyond usefullness in most cases. Maybe if we had to worry about a sophisticated enemy who you might have to worry about gaining secret design info from would you worry more about them getting ahold of it, but in most undeveloped countries where the final victory is almost guaranteed to be yours, and recovery of the drones would eventually occur, there is little to worry about losing something that would primarily be a high tech electronic device. It would be more hazardous to lose a few sets of night vision goggles.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
The predator is primarily a spying device, and its electronics would likely be damaged beyond usefullness in most cases. Maybe if we had to worry about a sophisticated enemy who you might have to worry about gaining secret design info from would you worry more about them getting ahold of it, but in most undeveloped countries where the final victory is almost guaranteed to be yours, and recovery of the drones would eventually occur, there is little to worry about losing something that would primarily be a high tech electronic device. It would be more hazardous to lose a few sets of night vision goggles.

Did you see that video of the one that went down the other day? It was relatively intact, the long wings weren't even broken. It was in really good shape. I'm sure the electronics survived just fine. I wouldn't worry about Iraq using it, I'd worry about them giving it to Russia.

But I'm sure that countries like Russia already have such technology anyway, and they'd be more than willing to sell it to someone who asks.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: mastertech01



Well if you are referring to making a self destruct mechanism on them then I can only ask, how would you like knowing you are driving around a time bomb? Never knowing if the self destruct would malfunction and blow you to kingdom come, or some nitwit would accidently trigger it. Its way too impracticle and dangerous. Better to leave it to demolition teams or air crews. IMHO

How would that be any different than lugging around a bunch of bombs under your wings? When do you see them detonating prematurely? Or carrying around hand grenades?

Its the difference of driving a fully armed tank across a bridge and driving a fully armed tank across a bridge that is rigged with explosives... added risk factor, nothing more, nothing less. War is high risk enough without adding un-necessary risk into the equation.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Its the difference of driving a fully armed tank across a bridge and driving a fully armed tank across a bridge that is rigged with explosives... added risk factor, nothing more, nothing less. War is high risk enough without adding un-necessary risk into the equation.

I think it's not much of a risk. If you think about it, most pilots are already sitting on top of a rocket in their ejection seat. At first you might think it's an unneccesary risk because only a small percentage ever will need to use it, but a high percentage will be exposed to the risk of the seat going off when it's not supposed to. But time has shown them to be very reliable and safe. Accidents do occur, but not often.

I don't think a self destruct mechanism would be as dangerous as you think. The fear, uncertainty, and doubt is what bothers you, not really the reliability of such a system. If systems such as that had already been used for years, you probably wouldn't have the same fear as you would if we were just starting to install them now.

 

[rbV5]

I'm pretty sure the Spy Plane that was forced to land after being struck by the Chinese fighter recently would have been destructed if it were possible at some point.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Its the difference of driving a fully armed tank across a bridge and driving a fully armed tank across a bridge that is rigged with explosives... added risk factor, nothing more, nothing less. War is high risk enough without adding un-necessary risk into the equation.

I think it's not much of a risk. If you think about it, most pilots are already sitting on top of a rocket in their ejection seat. At first you might think it's an unneccesary risk because only a small percentage ever will need to use it, but a high percentage will be exposed to the risk of the seat going off when it's not supposed to. But time has shown them to be very reliable and safe. Accidents do occur, but not often.

I don't think a self destruct mechanism would be as dangerous as you think. The fear, uncertainty, and doubt is what bothers you, not really the reliability of such a system. If systems such as that had already been used for years, you probably wouldn't have the same fear as you would if we were just starting to install them now.

I do have experience in one thing for certain... soldiers and their propensity to fail to pay attentiaon to detail, and uncle sams propensity to buy from the lowest bidder. To create such a system IMHO into every military vehicle would be highly risky, impracticle, and not necessary. You cant compare the reliability of a multimillion dollar fighter and a 24,000 dollar humvee. Millions of dollars are spent on system safety design into those aircraft and millions spent on redundant safety systems and checks of those systems. It would not be practicle or possible with common combat vehicles. IMHO

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: rbV5
I'm pretty sure the Spy Plane that was forced to land after being struck by the Chinese fighter recently would have been destructed if it were possible at some point.

Yes, it probably would.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

I do have experience in one thing for certain... soldiers and their propensity to fail to pay attentiaon to detail, and uncle sams propensity to buy from the lowest bidder. To create such a system IMHO into every military vehicle would be highly risky, impracticle, and not necessary. You cant compare the reliability of a multimillion dollar fighter and a 24,000 dollar humvee. Millions of dollars are spent on system safety design into those aircraft and millions spent on redundant safety systems and checks of those systems. It would not be practicle or possible with common combat vehicles. IMHO

Yeah, you're probably right here. But who would want to put a self destruct mechanism on every vehicle? In my original post that I was referring to, I meant spy drones and other very sensitive equipment.