Congress calls for answers on IEDs
- From: Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Before the war in Iraq, the Army had almost no expertise in EOD.
Spurred by the war, it’s learning from the ground up and needs
significant training help from the Navy. Among the companies with
their fingers and thumbs searching for the plum in the pie are ITT
Corp., one of the largest defense companies, has since bought EDO, an
early player. Others include
Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Syracuse
Research Corp.,
MegaNet, Bossdev Inc., Pegasus and American Science and Engineering
The whole mess is in the hands of Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Organization which almost sounds like a description of what's
going on.
Congress calls for answers on IEDs
By: Jen DiMascio
June 25, 2008 04:33 AM EST
Low-tech and adaptable, improvised explosive devices kill more troops
than any other weapon in the war in Iraq.
The need for an effective counterdevice is obvious. Yet in the
byzantine world of Washington, that process has become so messy and
elusive that Congress has ordered a review — and funding for a key
Pentagon office could hang in the balance.
From the outset, the Pentagon has searched for ways to blunt the
deadly devices. On Capitol Hill, lobbyists pitch their clients’
products. Congress uses earmarks to impose potential solutions.
There’s even an Electronic Warfare Working Group in the House.
At the Pentagon, there’s a constant search for solutions and money to
make them work. Yet the military’s own divisions often disagree on the
direction to take.
Now, the House and Senate Armed Services committees are calling for
reviews of the process and the office that oversees it, the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization. The office’s funding
could depend on providing that review, lawmakers say.
The IED organization began as an Army task force in 2003. Now, it’s
leading a massive effort to crack down on IEDs. It works to defeat
devices with technology, uses police techniques to crack the insurgent
networks that lay the bombs, and trains troops to identify and avoid
the bombs. Finally, results are being seen in Iraq: USA Today reported
Monday that IED attacks were down by 88 percent in May.
Since the war began, the office has spent about $10 billion — largely
from supplemental appropriations — in search of a solution to killing
machines that can be built with the barest of technologies, deeply
buried and triggered by any number of means.
Companies large and small have sought a piece of the new multimillion-
dollar IED-jamming business.
EDO Corp. started out as a small player making Warlock jammers for
what was then the Pentagon’s task force. ITT Corp., one of the largest
defense companies, has since bought EDO.
Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Syracuse
Research Corp. have all received a piece of the business.
While MegaNet, Bossdev Inc., Pegasus and American Science and
Engineering aren’t traditionally heavyweights, they’re lobbying for
attention for their IED-defeating products.
The ideas can range from promising to absurd — and interested members
of Congress fear that the lack of cohesion between the services will
make it more difficult to find speedy answers.
Army Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the director of the IED organization, said
he gets so many industry pitches that he needs a system of experts to
evaluate incoming technology. He has recruited from different corners
of the Pentagon, other federal agencies, federally funded research and
development centers, and industry to look for new technologies.
“If it violates the second law of thermodynamics, I’m not going to
accept it. If it breaks the laws of physics, I’m not going to accept
it,” Metz said during a recent speech to the Association of the United
States Army. “People read three editions of Scientific American and
think they can make something.”
Even so, the IED organization has invested in other technologies that
didn’t make the cut. For instance, a remotely operated, unmanned
Humvee called Forerunner was built to defuse hidden bombs before
troops moved in. Trouble was, the troops who operated it wound up with
vertigo.
There has been some progress, though. The IED organization did buy
more than 14,000 jammers for the Army and Marine Corps under a program
called the Counter Radio-Controlled IED Electronic Warfare system.
CREW, as it is called by the military, is credited with reducing radio-
controlled IED use by 60 percent.
But industry sources say current jammers do not fully protect the
thousands of military vehicles against all known threats. Naval Sea
Systems Command, which works with the Pentagon’s anti-IED office on
electronic countermeasures, refused to confirm whether that is the
case, saying the answer is classified.
An 80 percent solution is better than nothing, said one defense
lobbyist. Of the 3,323 U.S. deaths that occurred in Iraq through the
end of May, explosives were responsible for 2,111. IEDs injured 20,606
U.S. personnel in Iraq, and the use of IEDs in Afghanistan is growing.
The Pentagon has some leeway to buy new equipment using programs
designed to skirt its bureaucracy so it can rush equipment into the
field if necessary.
Programs that cost less than $25 million can draw on supplemental
funding for speedy delivery to soldiers, but they need support from
commanders in the field and congressmen on Capitol Hill. They also
lack permanence.
From the contractors’ perspective, the suggestion to pursue
supplemental funding pushes them to sell their wares to Congress via
earmarks.
Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees are
requesting plenty of such earmarks this year, including a $6 million
request from Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) for an IED-sniffing device
called Fido, made by the Oklahoma company ICx Nomadics.
Costlier technologies face a tougher road ahead, including
interservice rivalries and the challenge of finding a home in the
budget.
Much of that friction is driven by the services’ perceived strengths.
The Army has been dealing with the daily realities on the ground in
Iraq, and its soldiers have a feel for and expertise on the situation
there. But the Navy, which has planes that electronically jam incoming
fire, has long laid claim to electronic warfare expertise.
The Army-led anti-IED organization has put Naval Sea Systems Command
in charge of developing a next-generation jamming technology. But
questions linger about what to do before and after its rollout.
Ken Miller, a lobbyist for the electronic warfare advocacy group the
Association of Old Crows, takes a Pentagon-wide view of how to defeat
IEDs and sees problems ahead.
Though the threat from radio-controlled IEDs has grown, the military’s
ability to defend itself against them is in danger of eroding, Miller
said. Although the Navy has the most expertise in electronic warfare,
it’s turning its attention to sea-based scenarios. The Air Force has
scaled back its knowledge in that area since the mid-’90s.
Before the war in Iraq, the Army had almost no expertise. Spurred by
the war, it’s learning from the ground up and needs significant
training help from the Navy.
Without a concerted plan for responding to electronic IED attacks, the
military will face a void, Miller said.
Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa.), the founder of the House Electronic
Warfare Working Group, said the organization’s successes depend on
bringing all the services together. “There’s been a growing awareness
that cooperation is needed,” he said.
But even Metz, the man running the show, acknowledged the difficulty.
After the IED organization completes enough initial research to start
buying equipment, one service must take charge of the program and
carve out its own funds to buy the hardware — which is tough to do as
services build their budgets for 2010 and beyond. Metz called the
budget wrangling with Pentagon higher-ups and the service vice chiefs
of staff a “friction point.”
“If the silver bullet walked in the door this morning, and I was able
to mature it over a 12-to-18-month period, there would be a friction
point before handing it to the services,” he said. “You’ve got to oil
that friction point so you can get that equipment out there to save
soldiers’ lives.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BCF447FE-3048-5C12-008598F1C24A7BFD
.
- Prev by Date: Effect of a failed energy/economic/military policy
- Next by Date: Re: Officer Promotion Criteria
- Previous by thread: Effect of a failed energy/economic/military policy
- Next by thread: Some 'good guys' in drug war
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
