Header for SPIE use - PDF document

Header for SPIE use The market for advanced humanitarian mine detectors Peter Newnham, David Daniels Thales Missile Electronics Ltd; ERA Technology Ltd ABSTRACT Uncleared landmines and unexploded ordnance remain a major humanitarian and economic threat in over 60 countries. It isestimated that world wide over US$60m was spent on mine clearance in 1999. Most of this funding is provided by 1. INTRODUCTION In many of the conferences and public meetings, the calls for new technology miss the essential element of delivery.Manufacturers deliver products to the end-user. Research programmes will not do this because a large proportion of the This paper considers whether it possible to meet, at an affordable cost, the requirement, publicly stated by internationalorganisations and notables, for improved mine detection equipment for humanitarian demining operations. What do theusers need? What are the procurement mechanisms? What is the likely market size? 2. MINE CLEARANCE Figure 1 illustrates the basic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the manual demining process. It is assumed that alloverhead activities have been carried out including Level 3 survey and preparation of the overall demining site. The SOPassumes a 1m wide lane has been marked out and worked on. The activities shown are
Preparation. This includes visual inspection of the area, tripwire search drills and vegetation clearance.
Search and exposure. With metal detectors this involves the deminer scanning the detector head repeatedly over thearea. When prodding is used the deminer prods in 25mm increments across, and then down the lane. Any alarms arethen investigated before the deminer moves the search zone down the lane. Figure 1: Standard Operating Procedure for manual demining The overall clearance rate is the combination of the preparation rate and the search rate as shown in Figure 2. Typicalpreparation scenarios could include
Demining a dirt road or field, where little preparation time is required. This could include the case where mechanicalvegetation clearance techniques have been used prior to demining. Preparation rates in these instances could be 50-100sqm/hr. Demining a highly vegetated field in which the preparation rate could be 10-50 sqm/hr. It can be seen that improving the overall search rate by a factor of approximately 5 will improve the overall clearance rateby a factor of between 2 (10 sqm/hr preparation rate) and 3 (50 sqm/hr preparation rate). Figure 3 shows the dependence of search rate on scan time, false alarm rate and exposure time. It can be seen that reducingthe false alarm rate (false alarms per square metre) by a factor of 10 could improve the search rate by a factor of between 2and 10. The improvement is most significant when the time taken to expose possible mines is highest. It is also importantthat the rate at which the area can be scanned is comparable to, or better than, current methods. •Visual check•Tripwire drill•Clear veg’n (30cm zone) DeminerSearch•3 overlapping sweeps•Advance 1/2 detector head width DeminerExpose Platoon leaderDeal with mine•Mark and start new lane•In situ neutralisation•or remove and neutralise Beginlane DeminerPreparegroundObject? Det’n? Endzone? EndLane? EndLane Moveforward DeminerExposeMine? DeminerRemove No Figure 4: Cost of mine detectionequipment as a proportion of overallannual demining team costs (baseline caseteam cost of $250k per annum) Figure 5: Cost of mine detectionequipment as a proportion of overallannual demining team costs (baseline caseteam cost of $125k per annum) Figure 6: Cost of mine detectionequipment as a proportion of overallannual demining team costs (baseline teamcost of $125k per annum) Annual cost of standard 21 man deminer team Baseline: $250k pa$2.5k/det'r 33% dep paCase 1: $250k pa$2.5k/det'r 100% dep paCase 2: $250k pa$5.0k/det'r 33% dep paCase 3: $250k pa$5.0k/det'r 100% dep paCase 4: $250k pa$7.5k/det'r 33% dep paCase 5: $250k pa$7.5k/det'r 100% dep pa Other costs Handheld detector costs Annual cost of standard 21 man deminer team Baseline: $125k pa$2.5k/det'r 33% dep paCase 1: $125k pa$2.5k/det'r 100% dep paCase 2: $125k pa$5.0k/det'r 33% dep paCase 3: $125k pa$5.0k/det'r 100% dep paCase 4: $125k pa$7.5k/det'r 33% dep paCase 5: $125k pa$7.5k/det'r 100% dep pa Other costs Handheld detector costs Annual cost of standard 21 man deminer team Baseline: $500k pa$2.5k/det'r 33% dep paCase 1: $500k pa$2.5k/det'r 100% dep paCase 2: $500k pa$5.0k/det'r 33% dep paCase 3: $500k pa$5.0k/det'r 100% dep paCase 4: $500k pa$7.5k/det'r 33% dep paCase 5: $500k pa$7.5k/det'r 100% dep pa Other costs Handheld detector costs Such a new equipment capability could impact users and donors in several ways. 1. The cost of the equipment does not significantly change the overall cost of the contract (e.g. the $5k unit price, 3 yeardepreciation) but up to double the area may be cleared for a given contract price. In this instance
There are significant additional economic benefits to the region being demined.
The donor organisation sees a significant benefit for a slightly increased cost.
The basic structure of the demining team (platoon size) does not change. 2. The number of demining teams needed to clear a region is reduced resulting in a reduced funding need. In somecountries where funding is particularly difficult to find this may be attractive. 3. The contract cost for a commercial demining organisation may be reduced, resulting in increased competitiveness. 4. TECHNOLOGY Table 2 summarises some of the many technologies that are competing for a share of the market for new mine detectionequipment. Much of the work is being carried out in academic establishments or by consortia funded by government orsupra-national organisations such as the European Union. Each of the technologies can offer potential benefits to mine detection, however none offers a ‘silver bullet’. There isconsiderable interest in the potential for using combinations of complementary sensors in order to obtain an enhancedperformance compared to current metal detectors. The main benefit for using such multi-sensor systems lies in the potentialfor a reduction in the number of false alarms and/or improved probability of detection against a wider variety of mine typesand terrains. Table 2: Summary table of potential technologies Technology Maturity Application Comments EstimatedCost Metal detection Close-insensor 20 Mature, capable of improvement. Buried mines worldwide Suffers from false alarms 5,000 GPR Close-insensor 1 m Just adult, capable of improvement Buried mines,especially minimummetal Avoid clay soils. Works wellin fresh water not salt $10,000 MMW or microwave radiometry Close-insensor 20cm Immature, capable of improvement Surface laid minesunder vegetation Dry conditions only 2,000 Close-insensor Mature, capable of improvement Surface laid mines Buried under some conditions $10,000 Scanning X-raybackscatter Close-insensor Mature, needs adapting Finds explosive inburied mines Dry soil conditions �$10,000 Thermal NeutronActivation Close-insensor Immature, Explosive in buriedmines Soil conditions �$100,000 NuclearQuadrupoleActivation Close-insensor Immature, Finds metal andexplosive in buriedmines Soil conditions �$10,000 Nitrogen Camera Close-insensor Immature Finds explosive inburied mines Dry soil conditions Surface Acousticwaves Close-insensor Immature Buried mines Needs direct ground contact $10,000 Vapour detection Close-insensor Immature Not yet sensitive enough suffersfrom dispersion and windeffects $10,000 5. MARKET CONSIDERATIONS A key factor in understanding the potential market for new demining products is the donor and funding process for mineclearance and hence the purchase of new equipment. The global funding documented by UNMAS (United Nations MineAction Service) is shown in Table 3. This data does not include other programmes which may fall outside the UN brief. It can be seen from the table that
Significant funding for mine clearance activities is a relatively recent phenomenon.
The funding has historically varied quite considerably from year to year.
The funding varies considerably between countries; in 1999 four countries received greater than $5m, compared toseven that received between $1m and $5m, and more than twenty countries that received less than $1m. The situation is, however, somewhat confused and there appears to be a difference between the political pledges given forfinancial support and the actual funding for mine action programmes. Table 3: Global funding in US$ for mine clearance per year by recipient country (source UNMAS) Country 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Afghanistan 1,209,769 2,469,439 1,890,000 16,265,000 171,378 9,999,522 6,279,115 38,284,223 Angola 1,115,203 2,131,028 9,215,000 3,824,833 3,882,599 3,006,625 23,175,288 Azerbaijan 0 0 0 0 0 140,000 140,000 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 834,999 16,400,834 3,120,276 16,809,689 9,363,815 46,529,613 Cambodia 1,116,562 2,859,478 3,312,639 5,059,920 2,102,995 4,502,034 2,325,046 21,278,674 0 0 0 0 1,900,000 55,000 1,955,000 Croatia 0 0 592,500 606,126 1,330,430 220,000 2,749,056 Ecuador 0 0 0 0 134,860 204,023 338,883 Egypt 0 0 800,000 139,692 402,298 615,000 1,956,990 Eritrea 837,500 0 0 0 0 837,500 Ethiopia 0 0 0 0 1,910,000 1,910,000 Georgia 0 0 0 192,000 161,249 353,249 Guatemala 0 0 0 0 0 975,000 975,000 Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 Iraq 0 549,385 1,427,173 6,931,355 1,832,211 650,000 11,390,124 Jordan 0 0 0 0 1,285,000 1,218,933 2,503,933 Lao People's Democratic Republic 0 0 0 3,271,000 1,178,794 9,449,408 2,190,000 16,089,202 Lebanon 0 0 0 0 400,000 400,000 Moldova 0 0 0 0 0 152,600 152,600 Mozambique 2,167,750 2,563,731 4,562,475 5,371,000 3,023,671 3,590,470 4,812,500 26,091,597 Namibia 0 0 0 0 2,450,000 2,450,000 Nicaragua 0 0 0 282,000 67,430 336,549 685,979 Oman 0 0 0 0 0 1,400,000 1,400,000 Peru 0 0 0 0 134,860 133,023 267,883 Russian Federation 0 0 0 0 0 11,494 300,000 311,494 Rwanda 48,000 0 0 2,500,000 2,548,000 Senegal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Somalia 1,094,200 0 0 0 160,919 2,278,000 3,533,119 Swaziland 0 0 0 0 210,000 210,000 Tajikistan 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 Vietnam 0 0 0 0 1,517,241 400,000 1,917,241 Yemen 160,000 78,435 2,972,002 321,250 3,531,687 Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of 0 0 0 312,000 0 12,765,794 13,077,794 Americas(not country specific) 0 0 0 0 0 937,500 Mine Action Information (NotCountry or Region Specific) 0 0 0 0 31,604 0 31,604 Mine Clearance (Not Country orRegion Specific) 0 800,000 1,000,000 16,000 325,000 66,512 2,207,512 Research and Development (NotCountry or Region Specific) 0 0 0 0 38,600 0 38,600 Zimbabwe 0 0 11,280,000 0 11,280,000 22,560,000 Year Total: 5,588,281 10,853,351 14,280,526 70,088,862 21,643,324 68,876,216 61,553,785 252,884,345 The United Nations is one of the key supra-national organisations and the different parts of the UN all have various interestsin mine clearance. The UN has produced both standards for mine clearance and statements of operational requirements,which are fundamental to the operation. The UN operates in many affected countries, and organises and manages mineclearance programmes. New products will need to be introduced and fundamentally approved by the UN agencies. Thework of mine clearance is carried out not only by the UN, but also by the NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) andsome commercial contractors. In one sense these organisations are the end-user and their acceptance of new products is keyto the successful development, introduction and sale of new products. MARKET SURVEY A survey of some of the Mine Action Centres was carried out on a representative sample of the most severely affectedcountries. From the data supplied and also from an estimate of the current market share of current technology products anassessment has been made of the global requirement for new products. Survey questionnaires were sent to a large number of end-users and the responses are summarised below in Table 4 andTable 5. Note that individual countries are not identified because each country has specific problems which affect theirrequirements for detector technology. From Table 4 it can be seen that UXO forms between 38% and 98% of all clearedthreats and that there is a wide variation in the numbers of UXO and AP mines on a country by country basis. This suggeststhat the detector technology requirements will also vary considerably between countries. Table 4: Statistics of the mines a various countries Country Country 1 Ratio Country2 Ratio Country3 Ratio Country4 Ratio Country5 Ratio Country6 Ratio Average mines cleared to 1998 AP and AT 49,010 0.89 83,000 0.16 31,000 0.84 251 0.01 32,511 0.31 65,000 0.99 23,707 UXO 6,000 0.11 444,018 0.84 5,998 0.16 43,098 0.99 72,749 0.69 500 0.01 52,033 area cleared in km 73 35 86 68 1999 clearance area cleared in km 7.00 10.80 23.60 6.21 1.00 0.11 AT mines 300 0.02 649 0.01 1,351 0.30 0.00 53 0.00 320 0.05 243 AP mines 8,000 0.60 14,332 0.17 1,160 0.25 1,808 0.02 631 0.03 12 0.00 2,359 UXO 5,000 0.38 67,610 0.82 2,047 0.45 86,886 0.98 20,076 0.97 5,856 0.95 17,044 13,300 82,591 4,558 88,695 20,760 6,188 19,645 numbers Survey teams 14 20 9 demining teams 67 36 deminers 1,900 1,943 ? ? ? 1,922 dog teams 63 0 0 1 0 dogs 63 24 0 4 0 Table 5 summarises the usage of metal detectors in the same six countries during 1999, and estimates the spend onreplacement detectors. The annual spend on replacement metal detectors has been calculated based on the number ofdetectors scrapped during the year (and hence does not take into account completely new projects). The replacement spendhas been split into markets for UXO and AP/AT detectors by assuming the UXO, AP/AT ratios for each country reported inTable 4. The table also shows that the users’ preference for new detectors varies from country to country, reflecting thediffering nature of the landmine/UXO problems in each region. Extrapolating from the country survey feedback it is estimated that the world market for replacement metal detectors in1999 was approximately $8m (compared to the UNMAS total mine clearance budget of $61.6m). Assuming an averagedetector price of $2,500 this implies a total market of 3,200 detectors in 1999. This compares well with an estimate of 3,368which was derived from an assessment of the annual turnover of the major metal detector manufacturers in the same year,and a figure of 3,090 estimated by Frost and Sullivan. An annual world-wide humanitarian budget for metal detectors of 7. CONCLUSIONS The need for improved products to achieve greater efficiency and lower costs per square metre cleared has been identifiedand the international political and legal framework and impetus is present to facilitate more efficient demining techniques.The new technology product(s) being offered must offer good detection performance, significant improvements in falsealarm rate over current technology, must be simple and easy to use, in all countries, and not significantly more expensive ona sensor to sensor basis than current metal detectors. They should detect minimum metal / non-metallic mines and ideallythe explosive contained therein. The way forward, based on the feedback from the survey as well as consideration of a wide range of technical issues,suggests that the ideal detector will comprise a minimum metal mine detector in combination with an explosive detector.Technically this is possible, but reliable explosive detection technology may not meet cost, weight or low powerrequirements. It should be technically feasible, however, to develop a combined metal detector and minimum metaldetector that meets simplicity of operation, cost, weight, low power requirements and achieve the goal of significantreduction of false alarms. Despite technical feasibility, the mechanism does not exist at present to design, develop, manufacture, supply and carry outin-service upgrades for products for a niche market whose timescales do not fit normal commercial product developmentparameters. It is also considered that the market size and take up rates do not lead to economical large-scale productionruns. New detectors will only be developed and produced if there is direct and full funding for the costs of development andproduction, as the unique nature of the market does not meet any normal criteria for commercial investment decisions. The challenge that faces those committed to improving the efficiency of demining operations, by means of the provision ofnew and more effective detection technology, concerns bridging the gap between research concept and product. As long astechnology remains at the stage of the research prototype, the deminer is denied the benefit of more effective detection. Isthere a role for philanthropists as well as governments in meeting this challenge? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work described in this paper was carried out under the INFIELD project which was supported by the EuropeanCommunity ESPRIT research programme. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors. Theauthors gratefully acknowledge the managements of Thales Missile Electronics Ltd and ERA Technology Ltd forpermission to publish this paper. REFERENCES 1.UN Mine Clearance Policy Unit, International Standards for Humanitarian mine Clearance Operations 2.A.R.R. McAslan, and A.C. Bryden, Humanitarian Demining within South Eastern Europe - An Analysis of capabilityshortfalls and user needs, The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, May 2000