Evaluation of Aardvark Mk IV Flail - gichd

Evaluation of Aardvark Mk IV Flail - gichd Evaluation of Aardvark Mk IV Flail - gichd

30.11.2012 Views

6.5 Performance This section of the report is concerned with the fitness for purpose, reliability, running costs and ease of maintenance. 6.5.1 Inert Minefield Encounter (A7/1) 6.5.1.1 Description: A minefield consisting of inert filled AT mines was laid in a 6m by 3m area. Aardvark was set to clear it. The position of the minefield was on White Hill and had a gradient of 1 in 6.0. Aardvark flailed uphill at a speed of 150m/hr. 6.5.1.2 Results: Run 1 see figures 6.27 to 6.32 Figure 6-27; Plan of Run 1 Mine No. Mine Type Outcome 1 TMA-3 Partly damaged – 1 fuse removed & Outside flail width 2 TMA-2 Destroyed 3 TMA-3 Destroyed 4 GIAT Minotaur Hit 3 times, left in spoil on centreline 5 GIAT Minotaur Hit 2 times, left in spoil on left-hand side 6.5.1.3 Comments & Observations Table 6-8; Minefield Data Run 1 Although mine No.1 was partly damaged since one fuse was hit it would have probably detonated, figure 6.30. It can be assumed that the other four mines would have been deactivated. Page 34 of 77 DERA/LWS/LSAA/TRD000603/1.2

Destroyed Mine Case Figure 6-28; Layout before Run 1 Figure 6-29; Test area after Run 1 DERA/LWS/LSAA/TRD000603/1.2 Page 35 of 77

Destroyed<br />

Mine Case<br />

Figure 6-28; Layout before Run 1<br />

Figure 6-29; Test area after Run 1<br />

DERA/LWS/LSAA/TRD000603/1.2 Page 35 <strong>of</strong> 77

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!