Helicopter Shield Invention Gets Attention Of U.S. Military

	Richard Glasson, chief engineer at Control Products Inc. in East Hanover, N.J., with his invention, a prototype net mesh parachute to be deployed by rockets as protection for helicopters from enemy fire. (Photo by Patti Sapone)

[Morris County, NJ ] -- Richard Glasson spends most days hunkered in an office cubicle, where he designs computer sensors for bulldozers and backhoes. But he's proudest of an invention he dreamed up in the shower.

His patent-pending "rocket-propelled barrier defense system'' is a simple idea with a serious goal: snagging rocket-fired grenades in midair before they blow up U.S. combat helicopters over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Glasson loved model rockets as a boy. He envisions similar rockets whizzing from a helicopter the instant an incoming grenade is detected.

These rockets won't aim to hit the grenade — "hitting a bullet with a bullet'' is really hard. Instead, they will tow parachutes of braided steel or Kevlar, creating a mesh barrier to block or detonate the explosive before it reaches the helicopter.

"This is kind of like Spider-Man. He shoots out a net, too,'' says Glasson, 48, chief engineer for Control Products Inc. in East Hanover, N.J.

It sounds almost too simple at first — yet that's precisely why Popular Science magazine is citing the idea among the year's top inventions. The concept — there is no working prototype yet — is easy to grasp, and could be used with existing electronics and flare launching tubes on military helicopters. Glasson says defense contractors and the Navy are showing glimmers of interest.

For security reasons, the Pentagon won't release statistics on how enemies shoot down helicopters. Some reports blamed a rocket-propelled grenade for last week's downing of a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan. Seven soldiers died.

Enemy fire is responsible for bringing down more than half of the 61 U.S. military helicopters that have crashed in Iraq since May 2003, according to the Brookings Institution.

RPGs "arguably are the most dangerous threat'' to helicopters, says Army Maj. Ray Kimball, a history instructor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Cheap, easy to use, and with a long shelf life, RPGs are "the classic definition of dumb weapons. There are no guidance systems you can trick ... It's point-and-click. (Insurgents) pull the arming pin, point and pray,'' says Kimball, who also is affiliated with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

With a range of a little more than a mile, these shoulder-mounted weapons are not terribly accurate — until four or five shooters line up and fire a volley. While helicopters can deploy electronic countermeasures to fool guided missiles, Kimball says, the only defense against RPGs is to "fly very low, very fast or very high, very fast.''

The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division and a big defense contractor have expressed interest since Popular Science hit newsstands last month, Glasson says. But turning an unproved idea into a life-saver is a longshot.

"It's not entirely obvious to me why (parachutes) would be effective,'' says Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution. "Can they deploy quickly enough in close quarters like an urban environment? Would they interfere with the flight of the helicopter?''

And he contends machine guns are insurgents' new weapon of choice against helicopters. While Glasson's shield still could be useful elsewhere, "I'm not sure if this is needed for Iraq,'' O'Hanlon says.

As they fall to earth, mesh chutes and their rockets also might pose risks to friendly forces and civilians on the ground, Kimball adds. That could present tough choices. Safer helicopter crews, or safer local populations? Win over the civilians, he says, and maybe nobody will shoot any RPGs.

Glasson was inspired by "Black Hawk Down,'' the story of U.S. special forces who sustained heavy losses in Somalia when two MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters were felled by RPGs in 1993. He was amazed low-tech weapons could inflict such damage.

"I thought, if you put something in the way of that Stone Age projectile, maybe you can impede or inhibit that projectile,'' says Glasson.

He has no military background, but his brother is an ex-Marine, and his grandfather served in both world wars. Glasson jokes he was born with a pocket protector; his first forays into engineering involved converting grandpa's lawn mowers into go-karts.

"This doesn't need great leaps of technology. It's taking components and putting them together in a useful way,'' says Glasson.

More than a century ago, Glasson's company sold Calculagraphs, mechanical timers for billing long-distance calls. Today, 55 employees make switches for military helicopters and Humvees, though their main business is sensors for computer-controlled hydraulics on construction equipment.

"He lives and breathes engineering,'' Moodie says. "He loves finding straightforward solutions to complex problems, using existing technologies and linking them in ways others haven't seen.''

After reading "Into Thin Air,'' about disaster on Mount Everest, Glasson started mulling designs for light, folding windmills to generate power in a pinch. He has plans for cheap linear actuators, components that might lead to affordable helper-robots for household chores. A casual jogger, he also is determined to create running shoes that add spring to your step.

All that sounds within reach, compared to Spider-Man grenade nets. Sometimes, Glasson says, you just need some faith in shower power.

"Twenty years ago, if you said that 5 milliseconds after a car accident we'll inflate this big air bag in front of you, people probably would have called the cops on you.''

(Kevin Coughlin covers technology for The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. He can be contacted at kcoughlin(at)starledger.com.)

My idea is a micro Phalanx system using a .223 caliber gun instead of the 30mm gun they now use.

What happens when the RPG shooter is in close proximity with the light infantry troopers that you just dropped off? You gonna waste a squad of friendlies to save the chopper?

It's roughly the same problem that tanks have when using "active armor" systems that explode when hit with an AT missile. Dismounted infantry probably doesn't want to be anywhere near the tank being attacked.

I don’t see how this would work. RPG’s are effective because they are very small and very fast, giving them a great deal of penetrating ability. They’re akin to very large, rocket propelled bullets. Technologically, stopping one with a net would be no less difficult that stopping a bullet with a net. The scale is different, but the hurdles are the same.

To deploy smoothly, a net must have holes. RPG’s have points on the ends of the warheads, which will pass through the holes. In order to keep the net from simply ripping, the tensile strength of the net would need to be greater than the entire potential energy of the RPG warhead. That’s no small feat.

They already came up with something similar to protect their bases in the Green zone against mortar attack. These radar guided mini phalanx guns don’t shoot birds either because they’re programmed to only look for shells coming in a certain trajectory.

If a shotgun type of shell was used the lethal range would be
Short. I would also think that most rockets would be fired from the position of the enemy which should be different than your troops so their is a natural tendency to miss your troops, in fact if a rocket is to hit a object, the return path is almost the same so the gun system will some times get a free bad guy.

Any computer system could paint a black out area that it would not cover too.
The computer has to know where you are but this is not a problem anymore.

If you have rocket protection you could also fly higher. This makes it a lot easier to paint safe areas in the protection zone.

If a F15 could shoot down most incoming missiles would not this change the way war is fought? For a kill the enemy might have to launch 20 missiles instead of 2.

It is a good idea and could be done.

Idea’s like this have been getting kicked around for at least 10 years.

There are two major problems:

1) Just catching the grenade usually doesn’t do it... Think about catching a fly ball by throwing your glove in the air. True you slow it down & change it’s trajectory, but it still keeps coming. If it comes close enough, and it detonates, it makes no difference at all; you still get hit by the frags.

2) If it’s an explosively formed projectile and the net detonates the round, the projectile would be unaffected (It’s moving at 3000 feet / sec. +). The target would still be hit and the net may now be around you!

There are other draw backs, but these are the two crushers.

People are still working on ideas like this, and they should too. If someone can figure out how to remove one of the above two issues, then you have something...

I read a little about that system. They are not talking much about how well it is working. I think it was a full sized Phalanx system which for a base might be what they need.

Just send it to Japan and have it come back 1/10 the size.

Really.

I disagree. It's a fool's bargain. (Don't take that personally, I'm referring to the economic trade-offs involved) It's going to cost you 10's (probably 100's) of millions, not to mention years in development, to save maybe 1 or 2 helicopters annually. Choppers crash with greater regularity for other reasons. RPG hits are WAY down the list.

In this case it's far cheaper to adjust your tactics than it is to develop a radically new defensive system.

What about a parachute when a helicopter goes into free-fall? They have them for small planes now, and they’ve saved a few lives. You’d have to put the ‘chute right in the center of the rotor, probably, and it would spin with the blades.

It's been tried by the military and scrapped. There's actually a better way to do it too. If you place explosive bolts on the blade mounts, the blades will be thrown clear by their own momentum, solving the "rotating parachute" problem.

They've never been implemented for one very simple reason. Nearly all choppers that go down, do so at very low altitudes. The large weight of the helicopter would require a very large parachute, or a collection of parachutes. Those chutes require a certain amount of vertical drop to fully deploy and then to decelerate the falling helicopter. In the real world, if you don't have 1500-2000 feet between you and the ground, you're going to hit the dirt before your chute has a chance to do any real good. Nearly all helicopter crashes occur below that altitude, rendering parachute systems useless.

SAM hits are not way down the list in a real war.

You must know how Government procurement works because they would spend a billion to make a system that a normal company could make for $200,000

The procurement system is so sick right now we can’t get anything made in the USA at all.

Just look at any of the new systems we are buying.

Explain what par of this kind of system would be supper expensive?

A remote controlled gun, tracking radar, targeting computer?

Only when the Government gets involved does it become too expensive to make or buy.

Hmm... what about airbags? But less like a car airbag, it might go off right at the moment of impact so that the force helps stop the craft, not just the fully inflated cushioning effect. Sort of an “explosive armor” effect as it hits the ground.

Or perhaps if you had downward rockets that burst for a split second, like a vertical-landing craft...

It would work, because we’ve used simple chain-link fencing as an RPG defense system and it has worked. All it has to do is change the trajectory or cause a premature explosion of the grenade, and that will usually do the trick. However, due to the weight, size, and durability of the Kevlar netting, the net should wrap around the grenade upon impact and take it to the ground. Think of it like pushing your finger through really, really tough Seran-Wrap (not sure that’s spelled correctly). Again, nice in theory. As an Army helicopter pilot, I would like to see some tests performed. It’s worth a look.

Now, as far as the nets deploying accurately, that’s another story all together.

SAM hits are not way down the list in a real war.

We're talking about unguided rockets here. Fired with nothing more than the Mark One Eye Ball for a guidance system and a lot of 'luck'.

Re-read the stat. 61 Helicopters lost, but only 6 to enemy fire. That's still just 10%. Better maintainance could theoretically have saved more than 6 from the remaining 56 that were lost reasons other than enemy fire.

A couple of choppers were very recently downed by a Stinger-equivalent. That is cause for concern. Deduct those from the 6 and you have 4 choppers. Say 2 more downed by small arms and you're down to 1 or 2 by RPG fire.

We lost 2 choppers in Somolia to RPG's during the same assault. We've lost perhaps the same number in Iraq to RPG's over several years. I'd say our post-"Blackhawk Down" tactics have already nullified what had been a novel use for the RPG.

The chain-link tack-on armor carried by our Stryker's is designed to defeat shaped charge warheads carried by 'some' RPG grenadiers for anti-armor work. The warhead still goes off, but the plasma jet does not get to focus against the armor & so penetration is defeated (or lessened). Fragments from such a blast would still shred a thin-skinned helicopter.

This seems like a counter-measure that would be easy to counter. You simply fire your RPGs in a timed and regular series until your target exhausts his complement of rocket-nets.

If it were that easy to get an RPG shot at a helicopter, do you think we would still have helicopters left flying the missions? Certainly the issue with this system is how to avoid using up your "nine lives;" the issue on the other side is deploying RPG launchers ready to shoot at the time the helicopter is vulnerable. And that is an issue because our tactics, both of the helicopter pilots and our ground troops, are designed to make it so. You will line up your row of RPGs - and the helicopter will fly somewhere else because the pilot knows better than to be too predictable.
IMHO.

Now, as far as the nets deploying accurately, that’s another story all together.

That depends on the size of your net, of course, and the predictability of the direction of the incoming. A Korean War fighter pilot told of his first experience of incoming AAA this way:
I was flying along at altitude, straight and level, and from the ground in front of me I saw a ball of fire go straight up. I thought, 'That's interesting, wonder what they're shooting at down there.' A moment later the ball seemed to curve toward me and shoot past me. Then I knew what they were shooting at - me!
So if you are high and fast, incoming tends to look like it's coming at you from the front, even when fired from below.

Wow!

You have some gaps in your knowledge of RPGs! The Ruchnoy Protivotankovoy Granatomet (Company Antitank Grenade Launcher) is a rocket-propelled shape charge weapon designed to defeat tanks out to 200 meters or so. The slightest pressure on the nose after it arms causes it to detonate and form an explosive jet that travels 4,000 meters per second and hits temperatures above 3,000 degrees. They destroy things - including delicate helicopters - through brute explosive force and unstoppable Monroe Effect penetration - not penetrating like a bullet.

This inventor's net would cause any RPG to detonate close to 100% of the time, which definitely would have value for helicopters and our vehicles.

He wouldn't need a steel and Kevlar parachute though - an ordinary nylon chute would pop those puppies quite well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.