they were put out of service because those dispensers were considered war crimes as well since they function as cluster bombs basicaly
Not too mention the dubious-ness of scattering hundreds of landmines at the same time
theoreticaly the landmines are designed to self destruct, but guess that still was to unsafe
Nothing is certain and no guarantee its going to be military personel being sent onto an AF to repair it after a JP233 is used
never realy thought about it, but specialy in cases like AF, you have to send personal to manualy disarm the mines cant just send a Keiler over it to destroy them. Since that as a result would destroy the whole runway to take of as well
Yep, maybe even would do damage to that kind of vehicle too
Spoiler
“The HB-876 mines would lie scattered on the surface, making rapid repair of the runway very hazardous. The outside of the munition was surrounded by a “coronet” of spring steel strips that were held flat against the sides of the mine. After landing on the surface, a small explosive device would fire and release the coronet springs such that the mine would become “erect” on the surface, with its self-forging fragment warhead pointing vertically upwards. The cylindrical case of the mine was made from dimpled steel and on detonation would spread small steel anti-personnel fragments, rather like a hand-grenade, in all radial directions. They would explode at preset intervals or if disturbed. Standing above the surface on the coronet of spring steel legs, they would tilt toward a bulldozer blade when pushed before detonating and firing the forged fragments toward the vehicle.”
By the looks of things, JP233 were pulled from service more because of the mines than the runway cratering bomblets
Spoiler
“With the increasing availability of standoff attack munitions capable of the same mission with little risk to the flight crew and aircraft, and the British entry into the Land Mines Treaty (which declares the HB-876 illegal), the JP233 has been withdrawn from service.”
1 Like
Spoiler
Eh Questionable, in the case of the Keiler since the spinning rips out the device of the ground and throws it specialy away from the vehicle
Yeah, it mostly likely would
But if you want to quickly repair a runway the last thing you want to do is drive a mine flail down the whole length of it, that would probably do more damage than the JP233 did.
The idea of HB 876 is to make it so that you have to carefully demine the runway before you can start repairing it. If you miss one of the mines among the rubble and send the bulldozers in to start repairing it then you’re going to have a bad day.
The RAF manual says that the HB 876’s HEAT warhead was designed to be able to punch though a bulldozer’s blade and then penetrate deep into the engine block, rendering the bulldozer unusable and immobilised on the runway.
the message right before the one you quoted xD
Missed that one 🙂
That’s not why they were taken out of service - Dispenser pods are not prohibited by the convention on cluster munitions afaik (because they are not technically munitions in themselves)
Edit:
My best understanding on why the Tornado’s dispenser was retired specifically is a combination of doctrinal changes and as mentioned above, the switch to more effective weapons with less risk to personal.
Combining that with the relatively high maintance cost of maintaining hundreds of complex, single-unit mines compared to weapons system like a terrain following missile (which can have things like the engine, electronics and warhead stored and tested seperately) it makes a lot of sense. The UK’s Air Forces have become increasingly focused on moving away from complex muilti-layered systems in favour of flatter organisation and multi-role systems (A mine dispenser can only really fulfill one mission, a missile or smart bomb can do many).
I would also like to note that I don’t mean to provoke anything, I do just find it super interesting that there is a common myth about dispensers being prohibited for being a warcrime, when they are often explicitly excluded (even if I believe they should be included)
That link explicitly includes weapons like JP233 in it’s definition of cluster munitions:
The term “cluster munitions” refers to any of a number of weapons systems which, as the name suggests, deliver clusters of smaller explosive submunitions onto a target. Often referred to as “cluster bombs” the submunitions are in fact every bit as likely to be delivered by missiles, artillery or strewn from fixed dispensers as they are to be dropped in bombs from aircraft.
Where? I can’t see it anywhere?
Edit: I see it, apologies, didn’t read your quote
That’s it defining a submunition though, not a cluster weapon. It’s illustrative of the type of thing - scroll down to the specific provisions and scope and it talks about the fact that advanced mines with time fuses and a bunch of other things aren’t included.
According to the UK Defence Secretary JP233 was retired because it was banned under the Ottawa Convention (which band anti-personnel land mines). He then goes on to say that it is also banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions:
Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the JP233 runway denial munition carried by RAF Tornado aircraft is a cluster munition within the meaning of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. [260222]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The UK withdrew the JP233 from service in 1998 in order to meet its obligations under the Ottawa Convention. JP233 would also have been rendered prohibited under the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Again, this convention does not relate to anti-vehicle mines and given the JP233 submunitions are designed to trigger against bulldozers and mine-clearance devices they are exempt from this treaty. (Article 2, Paragraph 1) - Edit for more info: Anti-tamper devices on anti-vehicle mines are also exempt from making the mine an “anti-personnel mine”.
Our Defense Secretaries are notorious for making purely political decisions and statements without understanding the reality of the situation. I would take anything you hear from a UK politician with more than a pinch of salt,
Here is the full text of the Convention on Cluster Munitions
In Article 1 it is made clear that they consider dispensers to be cluster munitions for the sake of the convention:
- Paragraph 1 of this Article applies, mutatis mutandis, to explosive bomblets that are specifically designed to be dispersed or released from dispensers affixed to aircraft.
Paragraph 1 being:
- Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
(a) Use cluster munitions;
(b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to
anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;
(c) Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity
prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
The UK Government considered the HB 876 to be an anti-personnel mine and destroyed them all, in accordance with the treaty:
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence of the anti-personnel mines stored by the MoD how many and what percentage of the total were destroyed in each year since 1991. [94663]
25 Oct 1999 : Column: 695
Mr. Spellar: The UK no longer stores any operational anti-personnel mines. The last of the Army’s operational stocks of APMs were destroyed on 22 February this year. The destruction programme for the last of the RAF’s operational stocks of APMs–the HB 876 sub-munition for the JP233 weapon system–was completed on 19 October 1999. Available figures for anti-personnel mines destroyed by the UK are shown in the table.
I appreciate your efforts, but like I said; Paragraph 2 of Article 1 is referring to cluster munitions being dropped from dispensers, not submunitions or mines dropped from dispensers, it is an important distinction in the interpretation of the text and is argued about constantly. Iirc it has also been repeatedly petitioned and needs to be addressed (and definitely should be).
I fully agree that they should be considered anti-personnel and also submunitions. Again, I’ll refer you back to my statement in my first long-form comment on this;
I am not arguing that this should be the case, just that currently it is the case and this loophole has been used liberally by other signatories. Please remember that our personal interpretations and understandings of these documents are not the same as those of international courts and governments.
As a closing note: Please stop citing the Secretary of Defence, it is a political position, something which heavily impacts their credibility when discussing these sorts of issues. Not to mention, what the UK government does or does not consider an APM has no real bearing on it’s status with regards to these treaties.
They are however essentially in charge of the Ministry of Defence, so would be properly briefed in order to answer these questions. Do you really think they would lie about decommissioning the JP233 in 1998, and destroying all the HB 876 sub munitions in 1999, what would be the reason to do so? Misleading parliament is a good way to end your career (look no further than Boris Johnson for a recent example of that), and it seems like a pretty pointless thing to risk your career over.
Not to mention, what the UK government does or does not consider an APM has no real bearing on it’s status with regards to these treaties.
Your original comment claimed that JP233 was not retired due to legal reasons, rather due to better weapons becoming available. We have one defence secretary saying JP233 was retired in 1988 due to the Ottawa Convention, and another saying that the HB 876 was considered an anti-personnel mine, and the last one was destroyed in 1999.
That would strongly suggest that the reason for JP233’s retirement was the government believing (correctly or incorrectly) that the HB 876 counted as an anti-personnel mine, and continued use of it would therefore be a breach of the Ottawa Convention. Hence it is relevant to the discussion.
2 Likes