Depleted Uranium

As a policy Australia doesn't use DU in shells and armour because of "political correctness" in my opinion. We could use them for say on the M242 cannon on the ASLAVs or even on our Fighter A/C but we don't because they are radioactive and "deform babies". We could also use DU as Armour on our Abrams tanks which seems even more safe as it's not fragmenting. I think we should use them as up to 20 countries already use them. Have all the 30mm rounds from the A-10s use in Operation Iraqi Freedom caused deformities in babies?

However what's is everybody's opinion on here about using Depleted Uranium for 1) Armour Piercing rounds and 2) As Armour on our Abrams etc?

I will show what was posted on another military forum (US) which shows more insight when I posed the question.

I haven't asked the others but I am pretty sure their attitude towards DU is the same as mine because it is fact based and they are a lot of smart cookies.

The Hype about DU rounds is anti-nuke hysteria and liberal and Anti-American propaganda.

The Anti-Nuke hysteria comes from a mistaken belief in just what DU is.
Liberal propaganda is aimed at throwing trash towards the military and us Conservative "Warhawks"
And the Anti-American crap comes from a desire to hurt the United States as a whole being that we are the biggest users of DU in ammo and armor.

What many people THINK DU is....

Radioactive waste Uranium after it has been used up as fuel in a nuclear reactor.
Highly toxic and radioactive, it poisons the landscape, people, and the targets it has been fired at.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

What DU actually is....

best start with an explanation as to how they Make Nuclear fuel for reactors to show how it is NOT spent nuclear fuel.

Natural Uranium has several isotopes in it.

U-238 99.27%
U-235 0.72%
U-234 0.0055%

What is needed as Nuclear fuel is the U-235. But the vast majority of the Natural Uranium is U-238.
You always hear about Enrichment and centrifuges and the like when referring to Nuclear building programs like with Iran, etc... They put it in centrifuges and spin it separating out the different isotopes. What they get is the U-235 which is just over a half of a percent. They need that to be closer to 90% and discard the rest as useless. This discarded bit is almost pure U-238 with a wee bit of U-234. U-235 is the highly radioactive bit used for nuclear fuel, the discarded bit is non-radioactive having been "depleted" of it's U-235 component, hence depleted Uranium or "DU".

So it never was nuclear fuel, spent or otherwise. It was what was discarded and left over after the radioactive part (U-235) was removed from it for use as nuclear fuel. When I say U-238 (DU) is non-radioactive, I mean relatively speaking of course. Almost all substances will emit a slight radioactive signal. but it is much less that what you get from the burning filament of a 60 watt bulb, or the glow from a tritium sight on a gun or watch dial.

Natural uranium is only very slightly radioactive, because U-235 is only a tiny fraction of a percent (0.72%). But it contains almost 99% of the radioactivity associated with uranium. DU, with the U-235 removed, is even lower in radioactivity than natural uranium.

In fact, DU is used as radiation SHIELDING in medical equipment found in your local hospital, because it is far more denser than lead.

DU is favored in munitions for many reasons.

1) Better range:
Being much denser, a DU round of a given weight is smaller and thus less aerodynamic drag on the projectile, yet retains the weight and mass/momentum of a much larger round.

2) Greater kinetic impact:
For the same reasons above, a DU round concentrates its momentum on a smaller cross section for a given weight thus achieving higher penetration capabilities.

3) Self Sharpening:
A DU round's Crystalline structure, on impact with a target, fractures in a way that keeps it sharp and pointed thus enabling for as long as possible the concentration of it's mass and momentum on a single point, unlike most other rounds which tend to deform and "mushroom" on impact.

4) Pyrophoric:
Uranium metal is pyrophoric in nature. When ground to a fine enough sized particle it will spontaneously burst into flame. When a DU penetrator enters a target such as a tank or other armored vehicle, the round is pulverized into a dust. This dust spontaneously combusts into flames setting fire to the crew, equipment, fuel, and ammo of the target causing the vehicle to often explode.


The Dangers of DU.

The danger is not from radioactivity, though it is very mildly radioactive. The danger comes from Uranium being a toxic "Heavy Metal" Just like cadmium, lead, and mercury. Yet I don't see Treehugger anti-Americans screaming about Lead poisoning around battlefields where conventional ammo was used deforming babies and such. Do you? YOu can with a simple search find several sites dedicated to getting rid of the highly radioactive dangers of DU. they host a lot of photos of deformed infants etc purportedly from DU in the soil after battles in Iraq etc, where we used DU rounds in Tanks and GAU-8 30mm Guns of the A-10 Warthogs.

NONE of the photos are from DU poisoning. Most of them are examples of Anthrax spores on infants from other locations where DU rounds were never used. Lifted from various internet sites and reused for propaganda

I've handled DU rounds before. The US Navy used to use them as the 15mm subcaliber sabot rounds for the 20mm Mk-15 Phalanx CIWS system. But we have since switched to Tungsten penetrators.

(turns out lights)
Nope... Not glowing in the dark.



Hopefully generating discussion as always...

Simon.

This is what the Dept of Defence has to say on the matter, in my opinion anything that increases the risk of heavy metal exposure should be treated with caution, not that many years ago asbestos and cadmium were thought to be great.
Rod
http://www.defence.gov.au/health/health-e-...ed_Uranium.html

This post has been edited by Rod Farquhar on Jun 3 2013, 10:53 PM

The C130J has depleted uranium in the form of control weights.

Was assured by Lockheed there was no human risk with it

regards

Col

Hi Rod,

I had a read of the fact sheet and if it's all safe especially if it in a solid form so do you know why we don't use it for armour on our Abrams tanks as just one example?


Thanks

Simon

I have no idea Simon, you would have to ask the builders that question.
Rod

So Sir you have no idea why Australia doesn't use Depleted Uranium in either it's ammunition or armour on tanks?

Ta.

Simon
I really think that this topic has very little to do with aircraft of the Australian Defence Forces
There are plenty of other forums that discuss tanks and munitions
Please note the statement on our home page
This site is devoted to providing a complete list of aircraft operated by the ADF and NZDF for the military aviation enthusiast.
Included are brief summaries, where known, about the history and current status of airframes which have been employed in Australian and New Zealand Military Service
Please keep topics within those parameters

Hi Simon,

This topic is straying into areas beyond our charter and intent.

We are happy for you to post topics that realate to our core purpose as Martin points out.

As our website says on nearly every page:

It is our policy to only show historical events, no current operational information will be displayed on this website.

We are mostly about history here and would be very comfortable for you participate and learn about those topics while refraining from speculative or controversial observations about current Defence matters.

This message board has been a really helpful adjunct to building an important record of Australian & New Zealand Military history.

I appreciate as you have pointed out in earlier posts that are are younger than most of the regulars here and possibly have different interests.

Age is not an issue to us as would would really like more younger people to take an active interest in our rich military aviation history and respect people who have made huge sacrifices in service to the nations that they served.

We would be delighted if you can join in on our historical discussions and confine postings to respectful discussions of Australian and New Zealand Military aviation history related topics.

I would be happy to discuss this with you offline.

All the best

Brendan

Hi Brendan and Martin,

I understand now that you guys like discussing the history of aviation in all branches of the Australian Defence Force since inception. Like I said I'm younger so I'd like to know about current or near current issues like why we're having so many problems with the Eurocopter Tiger helo? Also why did it beat out the AH-64 Apache Longbow as our attack helo selection? Rather than discussing WWII Bomber A/C.

So that's why I like to throw up those hypotheticals questions. :D

I'd also like to discuss other things like munitions on our A/C (both past, present and future) and starting threads like I did before asking why the for example "Why was the M61 Vulcan 20 mm gun rarely fitted on our F-111s?" (I try to do my own research FIRST) So I don't know if a bring up a new thread about sonar buoys dropped from our Seahawks is OFF topic or OK to discuss on this message board? :unsure:

You see I just found out today that we Bob Hawke used our own RF-111 and later a Mirage jet to spy on the Franklin Dam. You see I don't know why the Hawke government couldn't just use local law enforcement to remove the anti-dam protesters and get the dam built. DISCLAIMER: I only learnt about the Franklin Dam controversy this morning because I'm too young.

Anyways overall points taken I'll do my best to keep my threads/posts on topic for this message board.

Cheers,

Simon

Lastly I know there's this new fangled interwebz with something called Goggle but can somebody please private message me other ADF message boards that I can discuss my kind of threads ;) Thanks guys!

Hi Simon
At least you didn't reply that we suck!
To try and give you some guidelines I'll make the following suggestions

The RF-111's use over the Franklin Dam, and the reasons for deletion of the F-111 gun are certainly the type of discussion we encourage
They have a historical significance and are about an ADF aircraft so they tick all the boxes.

The use of sonar boys on Seahawks, whilst the facts are probably in the public arena, is about current operational matters and that is one thing we really try to avoid.

Why depleted uranium is or is not used is probably in the above category and outside our scope and just maybe getting too much into politics (another topic we like to steer clear of).

The selection of one aircraft over another is often the choice of the pollies and not the guys who lay it on the line. Sometimes it is a bit hard to categorize if we will be talking about current operational capability with this one.
Most of the time it would seem politics and price are the driving factors.

What happens yesterday is history and open to discussion provided it doesn't effect what's happening today!

Another website that may interest you is
http://www.militaryphotos.net/

Having said that we certainly don't want to see you go.
Some of your topics have generated good discussion which we do encourage.

Cheers
Martin

Nah it's fine Martin.

The Politicians make decisions on what hardware to acquire based on recommendations from Generals, Vice Admirals and some civilian contractors. How much do you think Defence Minister Stephen Smith really knows about either our military hardware or our doctrine? He rely on his advisers. At least Minister for Defence Materiel Mike Kelly knows what he's talking about. Like I said before I've read many books on our SASR in which the operators say they usually get what they want when they want it. I would be surprised if they have had the $65,000 GPNVG-18 Night Vision Goggles for a while now like US DevGru and Delta.

For example (and I was going to start a new thread on it) why did the Department of Defence decide to purchase the Eurocopter Tiger attack helo instead of the AH-64D Apache Longbow? Surely when the decision was made the Chief of the Army at the time had a big say in what he wanted surely?

Anyways all good and and I know what the parameters are now B)

Simon

Thanks Simon,

Have a good weekend.


BC

Attached Image