"u don't have to know" > wrote in message
...
> What happen to obsolete weapons as AIM-7 Sparrow which have been replaced
by
> AIM-120 ?
> Destroyed or stored ?
>
Generally they're used up if still useable, scrapped if past their useable
life.

tim gueguen 101867

"tgueguen" > wrote in message
news:E6CVc.160454$M95.150375@pd7tw1no...
|
| "u don't have to know" > wrote in message
| ...
| > What happen to obsolete weapons as AIM-7 Sparrow which have been
replaced
| by
| > AIM-120 ?
| > Destroyed or stored ?
| >
| Generally they're used up if still useable, scrapped if past their useable
| life.
|
| tim gueguen 101867



A few years ago, I did some work at a military proof range in my state.


The 76mm Saladin turret had just been declared obsolete and the ammo was to
be destroyed.



The option of making piles of the stuff and blowing them up, was too risky.
So for the next 3 days, every 12 seconds, they'd fire off a round.



As much fun as that sounds, it's gotta get old after 3 days .....



Boom





Boom





Boom



--

Cheers


Dave Kearton

>
>| Generally they're used up if still useable, scrapped if past their useable
>| life.

"Expended" during mid-cruise 'festivities' on USN carriers. On Ike, we had a
couple OUTSTANDING airshows, with Intruders dumping expired bombs and A-7s &
Turkeys shooting off their gatling guns as they passed the ship. Great show!

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

"u don't have to know" > wrote in message
...
> What happen to obsolete weapons as AIM-7 Sparrow which have been replaced
by
> AIM-120 ?
> Destroyed or stored ?

What makes you think they're obselete?

"u don't have to know" > wrote in message
...
> What happen to obsolete weapons as AIM-7 Sparrow which have been replaced
by
> AIM-120 ?
> Destroyed or stored ?
>
> Thierry
>

I think that the AIM-7 is still being used, and is being slowly phased out
in favor of the AIM-120. They built so many of them, I doubt that they're
going to scrap the whole lot until AIM-120 production numbers reach the
AIM-7, or until they become completely useless, whichever comes first.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

> "u don't have to know" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What happen to obsolete weapons as AIM-7 Sparrow which have been replaced
> by
> > AIM-120 ?
> > Destroyed or stored ?
> >
> > Thierry
> >
>
> I think that the AIM-7 is still being used, and is being slowly phased out
> in favor of the AIM-120. They built so many of them, I doubt that they're
> going to scrap the whole lot until AIM-120 production numbers reach the
> AIM-7, or until they become completely useless, whichever comes first.

It's more a question of their use-by dates. Rocket motors, warheads, batteries
etc. all have guaranteed shelf lifes. Once those are exceeded the rounds are
considered unsafe and either need to have the relevant components replaced
(often tedious and expensive) or they need to be destroyed.

If we can sell excess older missiles with useful remaining life left to an
(approved) air force, we probably would; otherwise there's typically a Shootex
to get rid of them before they become time-expired. The Brits did this on a
large scale with their F-4s, when the F-4 units were given all the AIM-7Es that
were in the UK inventory (Tornados could only use Skyflash, while the F-4 could
use either). Many of the missiles were approaching their expiration dates, so
every day was Guy Fawkes day for a while, to use up as many as they could.

It would certainly be possible to store the GCUs, but probably not worthwhile
unless we were also willing to put the airframes/motors/warheads back into
production. We may keep some around for war reserves if they've got useful
life remaining, but otherwise probably not. Depends when the last AIM-7 was
produced for US stocks.

Guy

In message >, u don't have to
know > writes
>What happen to obsolete weapons as AIM-7 Sparrow which have been replaced by
>AIM-120 ?
>Destroyed or stored ?

Expended downrange, in a lot of cases. "Okay, it's going to cost X money
to have these 84mm HEAT rounds scrapped, they're at the end of their
working life and only a few backwater Territorial Army units still use
them. What do we do with them? Okay, I guess some TA units get to
live-fire their 84mm Carl Gustavs then..."

Personal beneificiary of this, since we got a truckload of 84mm rounds
and sort-of-orders not to return any...


It's generally cheaper to fire off LIFEX ammo than to safely scrap it.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...

> Personal beneificiary of this, since we got a truckload of 84mm rounds
> and sort-of-orders not to return any...

How's your hearing now, anyway?

Scott

In message >, Scott
MacEachern > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>
>> Personal beneificiary of this, since we got a truckload of 84mm rounds
>> and sort-of-orders not to return any...
>
>How's your hearing now, anyway?

Poor.

Probably more to do with too many 7.62mm blank and occasional
thunderflashes indoors with no hearing protection, than with a few 84mm
rounds fired while wearing ear defenders over ear plugs.

(Not sure if hearing protection is now mandated for FIBUA/MOUT, but that
could get _loud_ in a hurry)


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Scott
> MacEachern > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> >> Personal beneificiary of this, since we got a truckload of 84mm rounds
> >> and sort-of-orders not to return any...
> >
> >How's your hearing now, anyway?
>
> Poor.
>
> Probably more to do with too many 7.62mm blank and occasional
> thunderflashes indoors with no hearing protection, than with a few 84mm
> rounds fired while wearing ear defenders over ear plugs.
>
> (Not sure if hearing protection is now mandated for FIBUA/MOUT, but that
> could get _loud_ in a hurry)

I can attest to how loud 7.62 blank is during MOUT training (think of firing
inside of small rooms of multi-story block building with bare walls &
floors).
I expended the better part of a thousand rounds out of an M-14 last week
in just those circumstances.
The M-14 doesn't even touch the noise generated by the breaching charges,
SAWs and flash-bangs that are common in the MOUT environment. If you
did much MOUT stuff with out at least your fingers growing out of your
ears I'm surprised your hearing is as good as "poor".
All that being said, well, expect a lot of bad hearing in the years to come.

John Keeney wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In message >, Scott
>>MacEachern > writes
>>
>>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Personal beneificiary of this, since we got a truckload of 84mm rounds
>>>>and sort-of-orders not to return any...
>>>
>>>How's your hearing now, anyway?
>>
>>Poor.
>>
>>Probably more to do with too many 7.62mm blank and occasional
>>thunderflashes indoors with no hearing protection, than with a few 84mm
>>rounds fired while wearing ear defenders over ear plugs.
>>
>>(Not sure if hearing protection is now mandated for FIBUA/MOUT, but that
>>could get _loud_ in a hurry)
>
>
> I can attest to how loud 7.62 blank is during MOUT training (think of firing
> inside of small rooms of multi-story block building with bare walls &
> floors).
> I expended the better part of a thousand rounds out of an M-14 last week
> in just those circumstances.
> The M-14 doesn't even touch the noise generated by the breaching charges,
> SAWs and flash-bangs that are common in the MOUT environment. If you
> did much MOUT stuff with out at least your fingers growing out of your
> ears I'm surprised your hearing is as good as "poor".
> All that being said, well, expect a lot of bad hearing in the years to come.
>
>
Heck, I have bad enough hearing just from being in the vicinity of a couple
thousand ordinary firecrackers (and pyrotechnic devices involving up to a pound
and a half of flash powder) over the years, without hearing protectors. I can't
imagine doing MOUT without any form of ear guards...

--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email

>I can't
>imagine doing MOUT without any form of ear guards...

huh? What did he say? What?

Gordon
2,000 helo flight hours -- nuf said about hearing loss! :\
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
...
> John Keeney wrote:
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>(Not sure if hearing protection is now mandated for FIBUA/MOUT, but that
> >>could get _loud_ in a hurry)
> >
> > I can attest to how loud 7.62 blank is during MOUT training (think of
firing
> > inside of small rooms of multi-story block building with bare walls &
> > floors).
> > I expended the better part of a thousand rounds out of an M-14 last week
> > in just those circumstances.
> > The M-14 doesn't even touch the noise generated by the breaching
charges,
> > SAWs and flash-bangs that are common in the MOUT environment. If you
> > did much MOUT stuff with out at least your fingers growing out of your
> > ears I'm surprised your hearing is as good as "poor".
> > All that being said, well, expect a lot of bad hearing in the years to
come.
> >
> Heck, I have bad enough hearing just from being in the vicinity of a
couple
> thousand ordinary firecrackers (and pyrotechnic devices involving up to a
pound
> and a half of flash powder) over the years, without hearing protectors. I
can't
> imagine doing MOUT without any form of ear guards...

Mine are in. Seems some units consider them an option that they
hope they won't exercise: the tactical clues from unplugged ears
being more important to their lives than good hearing down the road.

In message >, Marc Reeve
> writes
>John Keeney wrote:
>> I can attest to how loud 7.62 blank is during MOUT training (think
>>of firing
>> inside of small rooms of multi-story block building with bare walls &
>> floors).
>> I expended the better part of a thousand rounds out of an M-14 last week
>> in just those circumstances.
>> The M-14 doesn't even touch the noise generated by the breaching charges,
>> SAWs and flash-bangs that are common in the MOUT environment. If you
>> did much MOUT stuff with out at least your fingers growing out of your
>> ears I'm surprised your hearing is as good as "poor".
>> All that being said, well, expect a lot of bad hearing in the years to come.
>>
>Heck, I have bad enough hearing just from being in the vicinity of a
>couple thousand ordinary firecrackers (and pyrotechnic devices
>involving up to a pound and a half of flash powder) over the years,
>without hearing protectors. I can't imagine doing MOUT without any form
>of ear guards...

Trouble is, maintaining both cohesion and tempo is really important in
FIBUA (or rather OBUA as it's now called - we conduct Operations in
Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means a
lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted commands
from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs in place.
So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on, in order to
keep control of your fireteam during the action.

(You might be able to wear earplugs under Personal Role Radio, though.)

Not sure if that's still policy today - the fact that we were firing
7.62mm should date my experience :)


Important rule of why you don't over-divide your forces: a keen platoon
commander, very freshly minted, decided that our fireteam should
simultaneously clear upper and lower floors of a house in Imber. So, we
cover as two go up the assault ladder, then myself and my buddy go in to
clear the ground floor. (You can already see where this one's going,
can't you?)

Right up to the point where I see movement and a weapon up the stairs,
snap off a couple of rounds and shout "Potts! Enemy, top of stairs!"...
as shots ring out from the top of the stairs along with a yell of "Emu!
Enemy, stairs!"

Pause. Curse volubly and imaginatively. Express gratitude to $DEITY of
choice that this is a training exercise and we were only using blank
rounds for our blue-on-blue. Explain events to Pl Comd and advise an
all-or-nothing approach: suggesting that next time, entry team goes in
upstairs and the other pair content themselves with covering the exits.
Suggestion accepted, experience promulgated.

Hopefully, having made or seen made the mistake in training, it will be
avoided in reality... there are so many new and exciting ways to cock
up, why repeat old ones?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> Trouble is, maintaining both cohesion and tempo is really important in
> FIBUA (or rather OBUA as it's now called - we conduct Operations in
> Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means a
> lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted commands
> from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs in place.
> So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on, in order to
> keep control of your fireteam during the action.

I wonder how much earplugs actually hurt communication in OUBA.

I know that on my motorcycle, while wearing earplugs under my helmet
means I can't hear subtle changes in engine noise, if I don't have
them in I'm noticeably more fatigued and less alert after as little as
15 minutes. I could easily imagine that the slight decrease in
hearing on average could be outweighed by the large increase in
hearing during the five seconds after shots being fired.

-jake

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, Marc Reeve
> > writes
> >John Keeney wrote:
> >> I can attest to how loud 7.62 blank is during MOUT training (think
> >>of firing
> >> inside of small rooms of multi-story block building with bare walls &
> >> floors).
> >> I expended the better part of a thousand rounds out of an M-14 last week
> >> in just those circumstances.
> >> The M-14 doesn't even touch the noise generated by the breaching charges,
> >> SAWs and flash-bangs that are common in the MOUT environment. If you
> >> did much MOUT stuff with out at least your fingers growing out of your
> >> ears I'm surprised your hearing is as good as "poor".
> >> All that being said, well, expect a lot of bad hearing in the years to come.
> >>
> >Heck, I have bad enough hearing just from being in the vicinity of a
> >couple thousand ordinary firecrackers (and pyrotechnic devices
> >involving up to a pound and a half of flash powder) over the years,
> >without hearing protectors. I can't imagine doing MOUT without any form
> >of ear guards...
>
> Trouble is, maintaining both cohesion and tempo is really important in
> FIBUA (or rather OBUA as it's now called - we conduct Operations in
> Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means a
> lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted commands
> from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs in place.
> So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on, in order to
> keep control of your fireteam during the action.
>
> (You might be able to wear earplugs under Personal Role Radio, though.)
>
> Not sure if that's still policy today - the fact that we were firing
> 7.62mm should date my experience :)
>
> Important rule of why you don't over-divide your forces: a keen platoon
> commander, very freshly minted, decided that our fireteam should
> simultaneously clear upper and lower floors of a house in Imber. So, we
> cover as two go up the assault ladder, then myself and my buddy go in to
> clear the ground floor. (You can already see where this one's going,
> can't you?)
>
> Right up to the point where I see movement and a weapon up the stairs,
> snap off a couple of rounds and shout "Potts! Enemy, top of stairs!"...
> as shots ring out from the top of the stairs along with a yell of "Emu!
> Enemy, stairs!"
>
> Pause. Curse volubly and imaginatively. Express gratitude to $DEITY of
> choice that this is a training exercise and we were only using blank
> rounds for our blue-on-blue. Explain events to Pl Comd and advise an
> all-or-nothing approach: suggesting that next time, entry team goes in
> upstairs and the other pair content themselves with covering the exits.
> Suggestion accepted, experience promulgated.
>
> Hopefully, having made or seen made the mistake in training, it will be
> avoided in reality... there are so many new and exciting ways to cock
> up, why repeat old ones?

I recall a similar scene in the german film "Stalingrad". They're clearing an
apartment building going floor to floor, but unfortunately two groups come around a
corner/top and bottom of stairs (I forget which) at the same time. Newbie shoots
and is feeling good that he's got them before they get him, then realizes that his
now dead target is wearing feldgrau, and is pretty disturbed. Old head looks at
him as he comes up, quickly sizes up the situation and casually says something
like, "Ach, don't worry about it. Same thing happened to me my first time," and
then moves past to continue the clearance.

Guy

In article >,
(Jake McGuire) wrote:

> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
> > Trouble is, maintaining both cohesion and tempo is really important in
> > FIBUA (or rather OBUA as it's now called - we conduct Operations in
> > Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means a
> > lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted commands
> > from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs in place.
> > So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on, in order to
> > keep control of your fireteam during the action.
>
> I wonder how much earplugs actually hurt communication in OUBA.
>
> I know that on my motorcycle, while wearing earplugs under my helmet
> means I can't hear subtle changes in engine noise, if I don't have
> them in I'm noticeably more fatigued and less alert after as little as
> 15 minutes. I could easily imagine that the slight decrease in
> hearing on average could be outweighed by the large increase in
> hearing during the five seconds after shots being fired.
>

I have electronic earmuffs that allow (can even enhance) normal
hearing, but cut loud noises with an electronic limiter.

I have seen the same thing available in custom made earplugs
looking similar to a hearing aid.

Thus the issue looks less a problem today than in times past.
Ain't engineering great?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Paul J. Adam >
> Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means
> a lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted
> commands from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs
> in place. So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on,
> in order to keep control of your fireteam during the action.

Why on Earth aren't active (electronic) ear mufflers used
nowadays? Like many hunters and shooters have done for
quite some time.

Such mufflers are rather expensive, of course, and I can
understand that poor armies, resistance fighters and such
can't afford them. But to hi-tech armies that actually are
currently engaged in FIBUA, like the US one, damaging the
hearing of its soldiers seems much less affordable than
getting another piece of fancy kit.

And it's not just about hearing protection. A soldier
with his ears ringing after eg fireing his weapon within
a confined space without hearing protection, will have
immediately, but temporarily, much degraded hearing. And
a soldier subject to a very loud noise, like a nearby
explosion, may loose his hearing immediately and completely
for some time. Thus, I'd assume that active mufflers would
enhance the ability to sustain FIBUA, much for the same
reasons that non-active hearing protection, like simple
plugs, might impair the ability to do FIBUA, at least initially,
ie before the soldiers being subject to damaging noise levels.

Moreover, shouldn't practically all modern military helmets
be designed to be compatible with low-profile ear cups,
and vice versa? So why not use them?

Not only do electronic ear mufflers allow non-damaging
sounds to pass, but the amplification can be adjusted, so
that quiet sounds are enhanced. Coupled to a directonal
microphone (and especially with a parabolic antenna), even
very quiet sounds can be heard over considerable distances,
which could sometimes, in special circumstances, be useful.

Plugging one's radio output to the ear muffs, the voice
com will be much easier to hear in a noisy environment, as
the mufflers can be used to cut the background noise. In a
quiet environment, stealthiness might improve slightly too,
as even less received voice com would escape the muffs than
a simple unshielded head-set.

Or is there somehting that I miss? Is, after all, some
essential information lost when the sound passes through
the artificial, but hopefully hi-fi, electronics before
reaching the ear? The muffs do conserve stereophonic
(directional) info of course, but is there eg problems
due to the disparity between the artificial sound from
the muffs vs the sound propagating through the bones?
That one can't adapt to with training?

"M" <*@*.*> wrote in message
...
> Paul J. Adam >
> > Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means
> > a lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted
> > commands from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs
> > in place. So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on,
> > in order to keep control of your fireteam during the action.
>
> Why on Earth aren't active (electronic) ear mufflers used
> nowadays? Like many hunters and shooters have done for
> quite some time.

Trying to wear ear muffs under a kevlar helmet would be a bit of a chore,
for one. I'd guess that some sort of hearing enhancement and noise
suppression system is included in the Army's various future soldier
equipment research efforts now underway, but the biggest stumbling block to
all of these new systems (to include personal HUD's, etc.) right now is
*power*, and your muffs just add to that--another power-demanding device.
Many Army leaders have identified the need for lightweight, long-lasting
batteries/power supplies as being the biggest single hurdle we have to get
across if we are going to see "robosoldier" type systems go beyond the R&D
effort to actual fielding; right now we are just not there yet.

Brooks

<snip>

M <*@*.*> wrote:

>Paul J. Adam >
>> Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means
>> a lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted
>> commands from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs
>> in place. So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on,
>> in order to keep control of your fireteam during the action.
>
>Why on Earth aren't active (electronic) ear mufflers used
>nowadays? Like many hunters and shooters have done for
>quite some time.

[snip]

I assume you're talking about the Bose noise canceling headsets.

They could be good for that purpose, but not in all environments.

The regular headset costs $300. The aviation headset costs $1,000.

Cautions and Advisories:

From the Aviation Headset X Owner's Guide:
http://www.bose.com/controller;jsessionid=BviC3pLtj1xkevlZm7b8o4e9223Y aghwnSATt5v2E22zwc8dgVnj!-373760557!1879924776?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EVENT&product=headsetx_headset_inthebox&linksource=productnav_txt_inthebox&pageName=/home_entertainment/headphones_headsets/headsets/headset_x/features.jsp
(mind the wrap)
Click on 'Owner's Guide'.

For the Quiet Comfort headsets:
http://www.bose.com/controller;jsessionid=BviC3pLtj1xkevlZm7b8o4e9223Y aghwnSATt5v2E22zwc8dgVnj!-373760557!1879924776?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EVENT&product=qc2_headphones_inthebox&linksource=productnav_txt_inthebox&pageName=/home_entertainment/headphones_headsets/headphones/qc2/photos.jsp
(mind the wrap)
Click on 'Owner's Guide'.

Both warn that familiar sounds may have an unfamiliar character when using
the headphones. Also, the Quiet Comfort Owner's Guide specifically warns
against using the headphones while driving on a public road or where the
inability to hear outside sounds may present a danger to the user or
others.

That said, I can easily see a use for the aviation headsets in aircraft,
tanks and other armored vehicles. I don't know whether training alone
would be enough for ground troops in all environments.

If you let some outside sound through, the system would have to be designed
to digitally filter the sounds of gun fire. It's possible - I've seen
audio noise reduction systems (dbx, IIRC) that effectively filtered only
the transient noise (clicks, pops, etc.) from vinyl recordings. The
question is would you want to do that if recognizing those sounds and being
able to place them in your field of hearing could be the difference between
life and death in a firefight? In that case, simple attenuation may be the
better solution.

>Moreover, shouldn't practically all modern military helmets
>be designed to be compatible with low-profile ear cups,
>and vice versa? So why not use them?

Good idea for a basic field helmet.

>Not only do electronic ear mufflers allow non-damaging
>sounds to pass, but the amplification can be adjusted, so
>that quiet sounds are enhanced. Coupled to a directonal
>microphone (and especially with a parabolic antenna), even
>very quiet sounds can be heard over considerable distances,
>which could sometimes, in special circumstances, be useful.

Again, useful in some circumstances. Long-range surveillance, for example.

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "M" <*@*.*> wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul J. Adam >
>> > Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means
>> > a lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted
>> > commands from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs
>> > in place. So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on,
>> > in order to keep control of your fireteam during the action.
>>
>> Why on Earth aren't active (electronic) ear mufflers used
>> nowadays? Like many hunters and shooters have done for
>> quite some time.
>
> Trying to wear ear muffs under a kevlar helmet would be a bit of a chore,
> for one. I'd guess that some sort of hearing enhancement and noise
> suppression system is included in the Army's various future soldier
> equipment research efforts now underway, but the biggest stumbling block to
> all of these new systems (to include personal HUD's, etc.) right now is
> *power*, and your muffs just add to that--another power-demanding device.
> Many Army leaders have identified the need for lightweight, long-lasting
> batteries/power supplies as being the biggest single hurdle we have to get
> across if we are going to see "robosoldier" type systems go beyond the R&D
> effort to actual fielding; right now we are just not there yet.

The size of the muffs is a problem as well. If I'm shooting a small
rifle, like an M-16 or Mini-14, the shell of the muff is resting on
the stock, and all of the sound goes to my right ear (and jaw) by this
direct contact. No amount of noise-cancelling gizmos can fix that.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"George Ruch" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you let some outside sound through, the system would have to be
designed
> to digitally filter the sounds of gun fire. It's possible - I've seen
> audio noise reduction systems (dbx, IIRC) that effectively filtered only
> the transient noise (clicks, pops, etc.) from vinyl recordings. The
> question is would you want to do that if recognizing those sounds and
being
> able to place them in your field of hearing could be the difference
between
> life and death in a firefight? In that case, simple attenuation may be
the
> better solution.

Yes.
You can't just arbitrarily clip the power of a wave form very much
and leave it a recognizable sound. There has to be a proportional
reduction of each part for it to remain the same sound. And if
you want to be able to judge distances by sounds you have to suppress
the not too loud sounds as well.
Simply blanking out moments of excess volume would leave the
troops walking deafly around corners in to firing muzzles.

Perhaps you could substitute a tone that changed in frequency
based on the noise level to let the user know there's loud noises about.

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> "M" <*@*.*> wrote in message
> ...
> > Paul J. Adam >
> > > Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which means
> > > a lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted
> > > commands from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs
> > > in place. So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later on,
> > > in order to keep control of your fireteam during the action.
> >
> > Why on Earth aren't active (electronic) ear mufflers used
> > nowadays? Like many hunters and shooters have done for
> > quite some time.
>
> Trying to wear ear muffs under a kevlar helmet would be a bit of a chore,
> for one. I'd guess that some sort of hearing enhancement and noise
> suppression system is included in the Army's various future soldier
> equipment research efforts now underway, but the biggest stumbling block to
> all of these new systems (to include personal HUD's, etc.) right now is
> *power*, and your muffs just add to that--another power-demanding device.
> Many Army leaders have identified the need for lightweight, long-lasting
> batteries/power supplies as being the biggest single hurdle we have to get
> across if we are going to see "robosoldier" type systems go beyond the R&D
> effort to actual fielding; right now we are just not there yet.
>

I've been using Peltor electronic ears for over a year and they work great,
but they are too big for some applications.
OTOH, I have seen the same principle in a hearing-aid sized device that
fits into the ear with custom earpieces.
These electronic ears don't seem to clip too much off the normal hearing,
just the peaks.

I did a program the year before last that needed to use LiMnO2 and
LiSO2 batteries. Found out that the US Army is the world's biggest
user of batteries.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In article >,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

>
> I did a program the year before last that needed to use LiMnO2 and
> LiSO2 batteries. Found out that the US Army is the world's biggest
> user of batteries.


In other words, assault is impossible without battery.

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > "M" <*@*.*> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Paul J. Adam >
> > > > Built Up Areas, we aren't necessarily just fighting there) which
means
> > > > a lot of voice communication: it's hard enough to hear shouted
> > > > commands from downstairs or around a corner as is, without ear plugs
> > > > in place. So, you risk ringing ears and partial HF deafness later
on,
> > > > in order to keep control of your fireteam during the action.
> > >
> > > Why on Earth aren't active (electronic) ear mufflers used
> > > nowadays? Like many hunters and shooters have done for
> > > quite some time.
> >
> > Trying to wear ear muffs under a kevlar helmet would be a bit of a
chore,
> > for one. I'd guess that some sort of hearing enhancement and noise
> > suppression system is included in the Army's various future soldier
> > equipment research efforts now underway, but the biggest stumbling block
to
> > all of these new systems (to include personal HUD's, etc.) right now is
> > *power*, and your muffs just add to that--another power-demanding
device.
> > Many Army leaders have identified the need for lightweight, long-lasting
> > batteries/power supplies as being the biggest single hurdle we have to
get
> > across if we are going to see "robosoldier" type systems go beyond the
R&D
> > effort to actual fielding; right now we are just not there yet.
> >
>
> I've been using Peltor electronic ears for over a year and they work
great,
> but they are too big for some applications.
> OTOH, I have seen the same principle in a hearing-aid sized device that
> fits into the ear with custom earpieces.
> These electronic ears don't seem to clip too much off the normal hearing,
> just the peaks.
>
> I did a program the year before last that needed to use LiMnO2 and
> LiSO2 batteries. Found out that the US Army is the world's biggest
> user of batteries.

Not a bit surprising. Every company level supply room I ever used or visited
had a full size refrigerator which was to be used for battery storage (and
of course for the supply sergeants lunch, etc...). Radios used the lithium
batteries, and you'd be surprised at the number of plain ol' D-cells a unit
required, to operate everything from the landlines (TA-312's) and
switchboard to the ubiquitous flashlights. I understand the R&D folks are
really pushing for lightweight fuel cells to take over a lot of the load in
the not-too-distant future.

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> In article >,
> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>
>
>>I did a program the year before last that needed to use LiMnO2 and
>>LiSO2 batteries. Found out that the US Army is the world's biggest
>>user of batteries.
>
>
>
> In other words, assault is impossible without battery.

"The scramble to find batteries and get them to troops fighting in
Operation Iraqi Freedom is leading to a policy review of
non-rechargeable batteries, as well as an examination of alternative
power sources, such as fuel cells and solar panels.

Inadequate inventories of military batteries almost led U.S. forces to
cease operations or alter tactics during Operation Iraqi Freedom. But
several U.S. manufacturers helped avert a potential crisis by slowly
replenishing stocks of the non-rechargeable BA 5990 battery, said a Navy
official.

Navy Capt. Clark Driscoll, the Defense Contract Management Agency
liaison to the Joint Staff, said lack of funding had left the inventory
of BA 5590s in “bad shape for a long time.”

The BA 5590 is the military’s most widely used portable power source,
operating a variety of communications devices.

“We literally [came] within days of running out of these batteries—where
major combat operations would either have ceased or changed in their
character because of the lack of battery support,” Driscoll said in
remarks to the Tri-Service Power Expo, in Norfolk, Va."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?id=1190

"John Keeney" > wrote:

>
>"George Ruch" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> [...]
>> The question is would you want to do that if recognizing those sounds and
>> being able to place them in your field of hearing could be the difference
>> between life and death in a firefight? In that case, simple attenuation
>> may be the better solution.
>
>Yes.
>You can't just arbitrarily clip the power of a wave form very much
>and leave it a recognizable sound. [...]
>Simply blanking out moments of excess volume would leave the
>troops walking deafly around corners in to firing muzzles.
>
>Perhaps you could substitute a tone that changed in frequency
>based on the noise level to let the user know there's loud noises about.

Possible, but with everything else going on (HUDs, data links, etc.) we're
quickly entering the realm of Heinlein's powered suits from _Starship
Troopers_ (the original book, not the movie). There's a description in the
book a system that would make a fighter pilot feel right at home.

I have a copy around here somewhere. I'll dig it out when I can.

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

"George Ruch" > wrote in message
...
> "John Keeney" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"George Ruch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> The question is would you want to do that if recognizing those sounds
and
> >> being able to place them in your field of hearing could be the
difference
> >> between life and death in a firefight? In that case, simple
attenuation
> >> may be the better solution.
> >
> >Yes.
> >You can't just arbitrarily clip the power of a wave form very much
> >and leave it a recognizable sound. [...]
> >Simply blanking out moments of excess volume would leave the
> >troops walking deafly around corners in to firing muzzles.
> >
> >Perhaps you could substitute a tone that changed in frequency
> >based on the noise level to let the user know there's loud noises about.
>
> Possible, but with everything else going on (HUDs, data links, etc.) we're
> quickly entering the realm of Heinlein's powered suits from _Starship
> Troopers_ (the original book, not the movie). There's a description in
the
> book a system that would make a fighter pilot feel right at home.

Power is one of the two or three things that are holding the military
up in adopting exoskeletons: prototypes -or perhaps proof of concept units-
have been demonstrated and they are nothing short of amazing in what
they allow the wearer to do.

> I have a copy around here somewhere. I'll dig it out when I can.

I suspect most of us in RAM have a copy lurking about some where.

Directed energy weapons are dang near here and power suits might
not be that far behind.

"John Keeney" > wrote:

>
>"George Ruch" > wrote in message
...
>> Possible, but with everything else going on (HUDs, data links, etc.) we're
>> quickly entering the realm of Heinlein's powered suits from _Starship
>> Troopers_ (the original book, not the movie). There's a description in
>> the book of a system that would make a fighter pilot feel right at home.
>
>Power is one of the two or three things that are holding the military
>up in adopting exoskeletons: prototypes -or perhaps proof of concept units-
>have been demonstrated and they are nothing short of amazing in what
>they allow the wearer to do.

Interesting. I'll have to look that up.

Re: power demands, there's a discussion upthread concerning a shortage of
field battery packs. Makes me wonder if we should become even more
technology dependent.

>Directed energy weapons are dang near here and power suits might
>not be that far behind.

Airborne laser systems, some of the Star Wars stuff. Makes me want very
much to know there's a sane person in control of the fire button.

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

In message >, George Ruch
> writes
>"John Keeney" > wrote:
>>Perhaps you could substitute a tone that changed in frequency
>>based on the noise level to let the user know there's loud noises about.
>
>Possible, but with everything else going on (HUDs, data links, etc.) we're
>quickly entering the realm of Heinlein's powered suits from _Starship
>Troopers_ (the original book, not the movie). There's a description in the
>book a system that would make a fighter pilot feel right at home.

Heinlein understood the virtue of simplicity and transparency, when it
came to equipment.

"This leaves you with your whole mind free to handle your weapons and
notice what is going on around you... which is *supremely* important to
an infantryman who wants to die in bed. If you load a mudfoot down with
a lot of gadgets that he has to watch, someone a lot more simply
equipped - say with a stone ax - will sneak up and bash his head in
while he is trying to read a vernier."

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

3 solutions :
-sold to air forces unable to acquire AMRAAM
-destroy, to comply with desarmement treaty or when out of potential
(missiles are allowed to equipped the aircraft during a number of flight
hours)
-stored in "strategic" warehouse, in case if...


u don't have to know > a écrit dans le
message : ...
> What happen to obsolete weapons as AIM-7 Sparrow which have been replaced
by
> AIM-120 ?
> Destroyed or stored ?
>
> Thierry
>
>

A fourth solution is that some were used in flight tests. I did a flight test
that used AIM-4 motors that were shot down the sled tracks at White Sands.
These were motors that were past their shelf life and were condemd from normal
flight. We had a couple of failures but 90% did what we wanted them to do.

>3 solutions :
>-sold to air forces unable to acquire AMRAAM
>-destroy, to comply with desarmement treaty or when out of potential
>(missiles are allowed to equipped the aircraft during a number of flight
>hours)
>-stored in "strategic" warehouse, in case if...