1. Black Adder disrupters

2. Problem statement
Current disrupters using an EFP to penetrate a munition’s
casing and initiate a burn of the high explosive content are
unreliable.
This may be because they:
are poorly filled in the field with air voids in the HE charge;
are used at an inappropriate standoff;
the detonator is too close to the liner; or
their liners are not able to promote a burn inside the munition.

3. Black Adder bodies To control variables in the empirical research,
we made a disrupter body that:
ensures HE filling without voids;
controls detonator positioning;
allows a liner to be selected when filling;
maintains a constant standoff; and
does not add fragmentation to the hazards when used.
This is a research tool, not yet a production item.

4. Concept proving 1
In June 2017 the Black Adder body design was tested at Poliex using eight inert targets. Six experimental liners were also tested.
Positive OUTCOME:
The Black Adder body performed better than the Baldric control.
All the new liner designs penetrated at least 15mm of steel.

5. Concept proving 2 Less positive OUTCOME:
The significance of the liner variations was uncertain because there was no reliable way of recording the spread of the liner payload inside the target.
(A simple design of witness piece proved inconsistent in use.)

6. Testing in September 2017
For the second tests, a witness piece that would provide a useful comparison of liner designs without using live munitions was devised.
This is placed inside a steel shell so that the EFP penetrates at least 10mm of steel before entering the witness piece.
The witness piece provides a record of the spread of burning material inside the target.

7. Two series of five blasts using witness pieces were conducted in Kosovo in September The results allowed two liner designs to be rejected immediately and the others to be ranked in order of their probable utility.

8. The witness pieces provided a valuable permanent record of the spread of material inside a target.

9. Testing 20th September 2017
A range of liner designs intended to deliver appropriate
materials inside the munition to promote a burn without
causing an immediate detonation had been prepared.
The range was intended to indicate the most successful
liner shape(s) and payload materials to work with.

10. CONTROL
“Control” liners used in the test series were made using magnesium and copper pressed into shallow caps, so representing the liners widely used today.

11. Live Target
All tests had to be conducted using the same live and fuzed munition.
Because small munitions are harder to destroy without a high order detonation, a small 82mm POLIEX HE mortar was used.
The munitions and fuzes were newly manufactured so the 850g TNT fill was fresh and sensitive.

12. Copper Baldric control test 1 & 2
In two tests against a fuzed mortar (with all variables controlled), the liner penetrated both sides of the mortar casing without causing a burn or a detonation.
Good penetration but an unsatisfactory result.

13. Magnesium Baldric control liner 1
The two tests against fuzed mortars had different results.
In the first, the mortar burned out and was thrown more than 100 metres away, landing outside the range.
The fuze was not found.

14. Magnesium Baldric control liner 2
In the second test with this liner the munition deflagrated and the fuze was also destroyed.
This control liner gave a good, but inconsistent, result.

15. Four Black Adder liners
Four different experimental liner designs were tested using the same mortars. (Two new liner designs remain untested.)
If the liner performed well, it was tested twice to ensure that the result had a good chance of being replicable.
The tailfin numbers refer to the position in the test series, not the liner.

16. Black Adder liner 1
The munition was penetrated and some fill had burned but there was no deflagration and the fuze was left in place. This liner was set aside.

17. Black Adder liner 2
In one case the HE burned and blew off the fuze, leaving some unburned HE loose inside. In the other the munition deflagrated.
Both results were good, but inconsistent.

18. Black Adder liner 3
Both mortars deflagrated cleanly with some unburned HE spread around.
Almost the best result possible, and consistent.

19. Black Adder Liner 4
Both tests resulted in a complete burn out with no deflagration.
The best result possible, and consistent.

20. So what?
The test results show that using a disrupter liner to deliver a payload that encourages the HE content to burn has advantages in terms of effectiveness and consistency when compared with Baldric liners.
They indicate a “best performing” liner geometry and payload, but the test-set was so small that refinement is absolutely necessary. For example, the winning geometry is complex and may not need to be if it was the unique payload that achieved the goal.
The results provide a restricted set of possibilities from which to refine the designs for further empirical testing by elimination – but they actually PROVE nothing about any individual liner design.

21. Future plans 1
A refined and limited series of liners will be used to repeat the testing and try to find the simplest effective design. These must be first tested against similar targets, then against other munitions to determine whether the results are in any way “target restricted”.
The “control” liners were made using the correct materials but of a size to fit the disrupter bodies. To provide a true comparison with the competition, actual examples of the disrupters (both bodies and liners) already widely sold must be used against the same targets.

22. Future plans 2
Any support that enables completion of the work would be welcome.
If the results are as promising as we have reason to hope, it is likely that one or more simple liner design that commands both a military and civilian market will result…
But this is speculative R&D and no commercially valuable result can be in any way guaranteed. The goal is to produce an improved liner, not to make money.