Hi
I have a question for people who interested in modern USA armor. I'm wiritig an article for modelers magazine about my Stryker. I bought for it Rhino Anti IED Device from Eduard kit, it will be good to write some words about original, but I don't know how this equipment works... In google hard to find some abut it. My friend told me that it is emitter of infrared radiation but he isn't sure... So I ask you.
I hope someone will be know.

PS:
My Stryker now:

..I think your entering the relm of OPSEC here wojtec

Was just going to mention that Roy! don't think they would want the bad guys to find out how it works!!

At least you can find some non-OPSEC info on the official JIEDDO (Joint IED Defeat Organization) website (https://www.jieddo.dod.mil/defeat.aspx):
"The Rhino system is a passive counter-passive infrared tool that joint forces have come to rely on due to its simplicity and effectiveness. JIEDDO funded an expedient solution developed in the field to defeat PIR-triggered IEDs utilizing a boom-mounted glow plug that causes PIR-initiated IEDs to detonate prior to their intended targets entering the kill zone. The first systems were developed in Iraq in May 2006. At the end of FY 2008, more than 16,000 JIEDDO-funded Rhino II systems were in Iraq. Upgrade kits were provided to include heat monitoring systems with safety and performance improvements to the heating elements."

PIR=Passive InfraRed

This should be enough for you to "get the picture"

HTH

Frenchy

Absolutely correct. Those of us that know how it works are not supposed to discuss it. Frenchy's quote is sufficient and in the public domain. Let's leave it at that. I have lots of friends whose lives depend on it.

Great! Tanks a lot Frenchy! This is exactly what I was looking for.
I not looking for technical details, only general information.
PS
What does mean "OPSEC"? I have never met this before... I suppose that this is something related to the military secrets or security

Operational Security

what is opsec:: Operations Security, or OPSEC, is keeping
potential adversaries from discovering our
critical information. As the name suggests, it
protects our operations – planned, in progress,
and those completed. Success depends on
secrecy and surprise, so the military can accomplish
the mission faster and with less risk. Our
adversaries want our information, and they
don’t concentrate on only soldiers to get it.
They want you, the family member.

They use IR switches(simple ones) that detect movement and trigger the IED.
I think the Rhino is clearly an antenna that can work in many ways to jam the receiving signal of the IED.

Such a device(not necessarily the Rhino) can predetonate the IED by emitting a powerful IR signal that fools the sensor to belive the object is closer(False Target Generator Jammers), or simply jamming the electonic circuit with electromagnetic radiations(Radio waves, Microwaves...not sure if IR would do the job) making the IED not detonating at all. (place your iPad in a working microwave oven an see if it works ... joking )
In the last case it could be something like the navy's EA-6B Prowler but in a smaller scale to fit on vehicles. Plus, they don't need the Prowler's effective jamming range of miles, a few meters will do the job.

Anyway the technology is not new at all and is very effective.
But if making the IR sensor and jammer is easy, making a counter jamming device in the back yard to protect the IR sensor of the IED , is close to impossible.

You really don't need to know how it works. Even thou Frenchy and Paul may be taking information from open source sites on the internet, there is no need to be posting it up and making it easier to find. It's one thing to research how a vehicle looks, but questions as to how Counter IED equipment works has no place here. You might have a different outlook on this subject if you were running the roads in Iraq or Afghanistan, not setting at home safe and sound building models. I would hope someone from Admin would delete this thread.

...AND you aren't building a working 1/35 scale version, so you really don't need to know how it works for a model magazine article.

Another way to think of this is it is "Proprietary Information" and you can't have it.

This type of OPSEC information jeopardizes the lives of REAL people, so please leave it be!

While I understand the reasonable emotions behind these sentiments, I think people in general get a bit worked up over OPSEC issues. Looking at it from a common sense perspective there shouldn't be much to worry about if the system in place works as its intended to. I don't think modelers or anyone else asking questions should cause trouble if that system remains intact.

Basically, the people with the information that might be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands know this. They control that information. If I ask for that information, they should be scrupulous and not just decide that in this one instance it is okay to disclose that information. There really is no harm or foul in asking. People should just say "Nope, can't tell you" and leave it at that.

Whatever information that is in the public domain already will stay there and is impossible to control. Talking about it here does not make it any more readily available in a day and age where the search power of google exists. Therefore, whatever information is out there in the public domain has obviously been viewed by those making the OPSEC decisions as okay.

Leaked information on things that endanger people's lives directly goes back to my first point that if the system works, all should be okay. It is the system's job to trust only scrupulous individuals with that information. It is not my responsibility to police them. If they shouldn't be telling me they know that already. I have no idea whether I shouldn't be asking. Again, this is where a simple "No, can't tell you" should suffice.

As someone who has been employed in a position where I have to field similar accusations that I or my employer is essentially supporting terrorism by providing information that is freely available at someone else's discretion, I cannot help but feel a need to respond to these situations. There really is no need to treat every person like a potential terrorist when simply responding that it is impossible to explain something in detail. Furthermore, publicly availably information might be out there, and people have a right to that for the reasons I've already noted.

JIEDDO is a public domain website run by DoD. If the information wasn't allowed to be there it wouldn't be. People's emotions are over riding common sense.

There is nothing in the DoD link that sacrifices anyone's well being.

Just my .02 cents. We can agree to disagree if necessary.

Now back to being relaxed, having fun and enjoying the hobby.

I'm a graduate of a electronic and telecom University . Something like MIT. All my knowledge is from courses and internet and believe me Armorama and Kitmaker is the last site to search for jamming devices. There are far better sites about sensors, jamming, their electronic schematics and discusions about it.

If proper schematics, documentation or at least detailed photos of the device's electronic parts are not leaked then we can just guess how it works.(Perhaps the system jams more than just IR devices)

Like I said any sensor can be jammed in 2 diffrent ways. Either the electronic device, or the receiving signal.

If protecting the electronic part is easy(using a metal case...wrap a cell phone in metal foil and see if it works), protecting the received signal is impossible to do in the back yard like the bad(evil is better) guys do. And I'll tell why.

If the sensor's receiving signal is altered, you'll have to design an analyzer of that signal, then another device must correct the signal(if possible). An entire team is needed, with more than just a solder and a broken radio for parts.
This is very hard to do. Knowing how the device works is useless and I'm sure the army guys don't have access to the schematics, wich are useless also, because you can't beat these jamming devices.

Hey Thatguy,
Just a few words; A lot of us still have friends downrange, and when there are topics that should not be discussed and it should be left at that. It should not be carried on by these left leaning tree hugging hippies. You don't know what someone could gather from a discusstion. So if you have no business noing it is none of your concern. AIRBORNE!!!

As for everyone else, there are no specific technical answers available. I could think of a few ways the RHINO could work but coming from a military family I would rather keep things to myself. From what I read, everything said here has been public knowledge and thats all the information that it should take when writing the article.

Now lets get back to building

Like I said before those are reasonable and understandable concerns. I would just redirect you to my views as I've already articulated them.

Furthermore, and perhaps even more so as someone who would no doubt fall into your category of "left leaning tree hugging hippies," I would like to point out that I have a right to know whatever is otherwise publicly available without restriction. So far the only thing we've discussed is something based on information deemed suitable for public dissemination and discussion by the US Department of Defense. Otherwise the rules have worked just fine and people have said, no we're not going to explain it in any more detail than is publicly available. The vitriol directed as those simply asking questions, as if they are somehow almost terrorists themselves is unnecessary.

I had a Bn.XO whose favorite saying was, "Don't be that guy!". Funny how those things come back to you. Going by your bio, `Thatguy", I see all your life experience seems to be academic. It may be fine to debate the pros and cons of open source information while you're sitting comfy on the banks of the Potomac, it's a whole different story when you have people trying to kill you by coming up with counter measures to defeat what works for you. Why do you think the KGB subscribed to Popular Mechanics all through the Cold War?




Vitriol? It's a need to know thing, and people on here don't need to know. Maybe you do have somewhat of a point. The vitriol should be directed at civilians who don't have a clue about real world situations, but yet want to put all the information they can find out there, and the ACLU types. This isn't a discussion about who makes the best kit of Sherman.

Sauer, if anyone ought to know better, it's you.

Hey Thatguy or mr right to know,
Ya right, Guy you don't have clue. You and your lefty buddies only care about screwing things up. You or your lefties don't have a right to everything. I guess you really don't get need to know basis. So do this get yourself a dictionary and break it down for yourself. You went Gtown and got your education from your lefty school. I'm sure you learned alot hanging out with your ACLU hippie friends. AIRBORNE!!!

Really Tony? I'm glad you know me so well that your qualified to judge what I am qualified or not qualified to comment on.

I actually do know better.....I know better that what is publicly posted is not a hazard to my troops. Therefore, I don't have heartache with it.

I'm not going to judge you or your opinion though...I don't know you.

From your postings and your bio I know you're an AGR E-7 in a Bn. S-4 and you've pulled a tour in Iraq. Yes, it won't pose a hazzard to your troops....here in the States. If you believe everything put out by DOD is safe, then you have some rose colored glasses.

Funny, I thought we won that argument? Didn't the Soviet Union collapse almost 20 years ago? Doesn't seem to have done them a lot of good if you ask me.



So just leave it at that, but I still have a right to ask. Open discussion is one of those freedoms that you guys are out there protecting isn't it? Its the thing that generally separates us from them.



I only said I had a right to know if its out there without restriction. Otherwise, its just a right to ask. Maybe if you took the time to read what I had to say, then maybe you'd have a better understanding of my argument.



I don't think you understand how to read. You've degenerated into ad-hominem attacks rather than trying to challange my argument. I haven't at all said I have a right to know everything. I have a right to ask and if its determined to be non-sensitive I have a right to know. If I'm not in the need to know someone should say that and drop it at that. Treating me like I'm some sort of problem because I would like to see if I might be able to know is absurd. Transparency within reason is a hallmark of western democracy that you claim to be defending. You can't have this both ways.



We can put this to the test with regards to the JIEDDO information, at least to a degree. The suggestion here is that even if DOD puts something out, then it might still be dangerous. The information on the JIEDDO website came from the unclassified FY2008 annual report, published on 25 June 2009. So lets look at the casualty rate (combined KIA/Non-Hostile Deaths/WIA not returned to duty within 72 hours) for Iraq from 2 January 2009 to 30 June 2009 and then look at it from 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009. Its almost cut in half (115 down from 306, 0.6 casualties/day or down from 1.7 casualties/day) from the first six months to the last six months, after the release of the information to the public.

Regardless, the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are still some of the lowest in US history, especially for conflicts that are on track to become the longest running such commitments in US history. With information even easier to access around the globe, the US has lost 1/10th of those lost in Vietnam in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if you only treat the combined total as starting in March 2003, be generous and define Vietnam as 1965-1975, and shave off almost 10,000 casualties from the Vietnam numbers, the rates per year are not even close (5000/year in Vietnam and 774/year combined for Iraq and Afghanistan).

I guess I find it hard to believe that me acting like a normal interested and concerned citizen is causing problems. I'm not exactly asking (or expecting you to tell me) your exact current dispositions, force structure, or manpower.

What I shouldn't know is rightfully being kept from me. Why people get so angry at people asking questions is beyond me. Just because someone asks doesn't mean you have to answer. Its those with the information who know when they shouldn't be saying anything, not us. Again, its not my job to police those people.

I can see no circumstances in which me asking questions or talking about things I know nothing about (besides what people in the know are allowed to tell me) puts people in additional danger. Terrorist and insurgent groups have technical experts and advisers both internally and from sympathetic sources. They also know how to work google. They don't need internet forums like this to innovate. They were doing it long before the internet and they'd be doing it even if the internet didn't exist. Its not making it any easier for them.

(This timeout for editing posts is understandable, but sort of annoying...I guess its supposed to check ranting hehe)

In going back over your posts, "Tony," it seems that a good majority are meant not so much to enlighten as they are to demean or show off your "superior" intellect. Knowing how to spell the word "definitely" would help add to your credibilty. You see, there was another boy wonder who misspelled it exactly the same way almost all of the time. Come to think of it, the same guy also shilled for Sprue Brothers the way you do, and often posted links to KC AMPS, once again, as you do, and used remarkably similar verbage such as "I guess you never..."
I'm happy that my observation about your mean spiritedness regarding reviews got you tossed. Too bad it didn't stick. Still wearing your rip stop cammies to club events? What a laughing stock. At least Joe has been there. What's your claim to fame?

I assume you're talking about someone not me. I want to be perfectly clear that I am not claiming now, nor have I ever claimed to be an active or former member of any military service.