NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Electronic Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Do IED Jammers Really Work?

October 29, 2008: The U.S. Department of Defense continues to buy new generations of IED (roadside bomb) jammers. The latest model is CREW (Counter- Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare) 2.1. CREW 3.0 is already being developed. These devices, for use in vehicles, cost about $77,000 each and are now reprogrammable. There is some debate over how effective they are. Two things are known. The devices have been in use for five years, with frequent new models and upgrades. Also, the many terrorists in Iraq put out nearly 40 roadside bombs for every American they kill. Something was defeating the bombs, and the U.S. military will not discuss details of what the terrorists were saying among themselves, or exactly how many bombs were defeated solely by the jammers. It appears that the jammers are useful enough to justify the several billion dollars invested on them. The classified details of the jammer's impact on the war has been discussed with some members of Congress, and no one has come out demanding an investigation of all the money "wasted" on jammers. That says a lot.

In most parts of the world, the cell phone or remote control toy is still the favored method of setting off these bombs. Where possible, just running a wire is preferred, as it is cheap, and cannot be jammed. The jammers available to American and NATO armed forces can also be obtained by most police departments. There have not been many takers, mainly because the American Warlock and CREW jammers interfere with so many frequencies. Hardly any wireless device works as long as one of these jammers is nearby. That makes the security forces very unpopular, at least if there are very few roadside bombs going off.

Terrorists are coming with more ways to get around the jammers used by security forces, to defeat roadside bombs. Some bombs have been detonated by light sensors set off by camera flash. This proved to be tricky, as you had to get the light just right. Another resourceful method was the use of a radar Speed Trap detector set off by a radar gun. This is actually an old one, originally used by Irish terrorists over two decades ago. It's believed, however, that the Iraqi terrorists reinvented it. Another popular improvisation is the use of the keyless Entry systems for automobiles. In this case, modified systems, that had a longer range (over a hundred meters) have been used to set off some bombs. CREW was apparently modified to deal with this one. 

Iraq is where some 90 percent of the roadside bombs have been used in the past five years, although Afghanistan is now becoming the primary are for this type of weapon. Until the end of 2007, the roadside bomb was a major industry in Sunni Arab areas of Iraq. The building, placing and detonating of these bombs is subcontracted to one of hundreds of teams that specialize in those tasks. The chief proponent of the roadside bomb are the Sunni Arab security officials who used to work for Saddam. These guys are still well financed, and that's what has made the roadside bomb such a major part of the Iraq war.

IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, became the primary terrorist weapon in Iraq because they limited attacker casualties. By the end of 2007, about 81,000 of them were used, mostly against U.S. troops. During that period, IEDs killed about 2,100 U.S. troops. That's about one American killed for every 38 IEDs used. Not particularly impressive, but as the only effective weapon the Iraqi terrorists had, they got behind the tactic in a big way.

 IED use started off slow, with only about 3,000 used in the first year after Saddam was overthrown. Of total of 81,000 IEDs used, about 30 percent were used in 2007, the year that al Qaeda and its Sunni allies were defeated. Because of the surge offensive, and the declining effectiveness of terror groups, the number used in 2007 was less than the previous year. Another factor in the decline is the growing cost of building and placing these bombs. The 600,000 tons of Saddams munitions that were scattered all over the country in early 2003, were largely been found and destroyed by 2007. By then, terrorists often had to make their own explosives, or pay big bucks to the black market dealers or smugglers. The people who place and detonate IEDs were demanding more money, because their job had gotten more dangerous.

During 2004, about a third of U.S. casualties in Iraq were from roadside bombs. There are also a lot of ambushes with AK-47s and RPGs, but these cause fewer casualties. The most exposed U.S. troops are those moving supplies, and other stuff, around the country. There are 300-400 convoy operations a day in Iraq, most of them being supply runs. This involves over 3,000 vehicles, and some 6,000 troops. Casualties from attacks on convoys are relatively low, although soldiers who drive dangerous routes regularly have about a five percent chance of getting killed or wounded during a 12 month tour. That's a very high casualty rate for non-combat troops.

The use of IEDs gave Saddams experienced and well trained military and security personnel a chance to show off their skills. But the most effective countermeasures were equally clever American troops using whatever high, and low, tech solutions they could come up with. Again, new technology got the most media attention, but when you went into the details of why over 90 percent of IEDs are spotted and disabled, you found that it was brains, not gadgets, that was mainly responsible.

IEDs have been around for several generations. The only reason they are getting so much ink in Iraq is because the terrorists are unable to inflict many casualties on American troops any other way. The Sunni Arab fighters in Iraq are, historically, a pretty inept and pathetic bunch. This can be seen in the amazingly low casualty rate of American troops. By comparison, an American soldier serving in Vietnam was about three times more likely to be killed or wounded.

IEDs were used in Vietnam, but caused (with mines and booby traps in general) only 13 percent of the casualties, compared to over 60 percent in Iraq. The reason for this is one that few journalists want to discuss openly. But historians can tell you; Arabs are lousy fighters. Hasn't always been this way, but for the last century or so, it has. This has more to do with poor leadership, and a culture that simply does not encourage those traits that are needed to produce a superior soldier. In a word, the North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong guerillas were better, and more deadly, fighters. They got better results without having to fall back on IEDs.

IEDs are mainly a matter of technology, planning and careful preparation for the attack. These are all things Iraqis are good at. You also suffer a lot fewer casualties by using IEDs, so the weapon is good for the morale of the users. Over the last four years, the IED has been used more and more. While only 5,607 IEDs were placed in 2004, there were 10,953 encountered in 2005 and over 40,000 in 2006. But American troops responded to the threat. In 2004, about a quarter of IEDs actually went off and hurt someone. In 2005, that rate declined to ten percent, and kept falling. This has been very frustrating for the terrorists and nerve wracking for the American troops on the receiving end. While billions of dollars has been put into developing new devices to counter IEDs, the best defensive tool is still alert troops, who have been briefed on the latest intel about what kind of IEDs are being planted.

The basic target areas for IEDs remain intersections and roundabouts, on and under bridges and overpasses, on verges and breaks in the median strips, defiles, and any place where the IED planner believes the bomb will not be noticed by approaching Americans. In addition, IEDs are often planted in a daisy-chain fashion. Another tactic is using some gunmen to draw U.S. troops towards an IED. These "kill zones" often employ secondary IEDs, that are detonated after the initial devices have exploded.

IEDs were big business in Iraq for several years. Most of the Iraqis making and planning these bombs were not doing it for free. They got paid, and the bomb building industry generated over ten million dollars a year in revenues for Iraqi individuals and contractors. For a Sunni Arab who once worked for Saddam, this was one of the few good employment opportunities available. Moreover, the low risk aspect has brought out the "Geeks-for-Saddam," crowd and resulted in many snazzy instructional DVDs and videos for wannabe bomb makers. Excellent graphics, and everything is in Arabic. Many of these items have been captured, along with a few of the geeks. The educational effort was supported by the terrorist leaders because it was obvious that, without constantly improving the bomb designs and planting tactics, the failure rate would soon get to 99 percent, or worse.

The organizations that provided the money for bomb building, and helped with obtaining materials (there's a black market for everything in Iraq, everything), evolved. They had to, as the management of the IED campaign quickly became prime suspects, and much sought after by U.S. troops and Iraqi police. But you don't hear much about this in the media, for the simple reason that American intelligence did not want to let on how much it knew and how close it was getting to the remaining IED kingpins. That was very much a war in the shadows, and one that extended into neighboring countries. By early 2008, most of the IED gangs were destroyed, severely damaged, or disbanded (by lack of work, or fear).

The biggest victims of IEDs were Iraqis, especially civilians. The terrorists went to great lengths to place IEDs in populated areas, where all the structures and clutter along the roads provided more hiding places. But the local Iraqis were not keen on having a large bomb go off in their neighborhood. The terrorists often don't give the locals much choice. After all, terrorists know how to terrorize, and they usually start with uncooperative Iraqis living around them. IEDs place in rural areas are much easier to spot by the Americans, and all their UAVs, electronic gadgets and sharp eyed soldiers.

The Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists believed that if they kept it up long enough, causing a dozen or so American casualties a day, they would eventually cause the Americans to get discouraged and go home. This worked in Vietnam, although it didn't work for the Japanese during World War II. It didn't work in Iraq, because the terrorists lost the support of the population, while the Americans gained it.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INFORMATION WARFARE: Competing Against Israel


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

jak267       10/29/2008 6:44:46 AM
The best IED countermeasure is a cluster bomb on the bomber's home village or neighborhood. If you do those one-for-one - guess what? The IEDs stop.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       10/29/2008 7:40:19 AM
I see we have a COIN expert posting on the board now.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/29/2008 8:36:53 AM
Having just spent the last 8 hrs in a combined DSTO/DARPA briefing on countering IED's. 
 
Yes.  It's however one tool in the toolbox

 
Quote    Reply

Baron    E Bird   10/29/2008 10:06:06 AM
 
 I had the "privilege" to use one of these warlock devices while in Iraq in early 2004. I won't go into the technical details of the equipment but I can state that it resulted in the direct deaths of 3 members in my convoy and the escape of the terrorists who shot them. I certainly hope that newer versions have fixed the issue that caused us so much trouble that January morning. I'd be more than willing to explain in detail what happened that day but not on such a public forum.
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       10/29/2008 11:49:34 AM
"...The classified details of the jammer's impact on the war has been discussed with some members of Congress, and no one has come out demanding an investigation of all the money "wasted" on jammers. That says a lot...."


I suspect that what it actually 'says' is that no one in Congress who hopes to be reelected is going to come out against research that could potentially protect the troops. It would be like coming out against body armor...


 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       10/29/2008 3:28:50 PM

The members of congress do not understand any of this stuff.  So, just likes presentation for the 'suits' everywhere else, you trot out the dog and pony show, throw technical details and statistics at them until their eyes glaze over, feed them a big meal, and then wave goodbye as they fall asleep.

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/29/2008 4:32:37 PM

 
 I certainly hope that newer versions have fixed the issue that caused us so much trouble that January morning. I'd be more than willing to explain in detail what happened that day but not on such a public forum.


Possibly have as the early developments were really primitive.  The newgen types are certainly working as a number of our blokes have confirmed that they worked and saved lives etc....
 
couple of additionals, USG is working with Aust on some new locally designed systems.
 
plus - not all jammers are the same.  diff IEDS are triggered by diff means.  in some events detection is via a combination of systems - not just the physical jammer.
 
apparently according to our briefing, over 70% of USFOR injuries are IED related - so the need is urgent - and the counter IED prog is very very aggressive
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       10/29/2008 9:00:22 PM
We really need a sarcasm tag on this board. My post about the COIN expert was to the first fool posting about leveling the village..........sounds "tough guy cool" to talk about, doesn't work in reality.
 
We had to revamp out counter IED training several times for MOB training....to the point where they just had the counter IED teams in country brief us prior to the training classes, and pretty much gave up on a formal POI To say counter IED tech is a rapidly changing field would be an understatement.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       10/30/2008 12:45:50 AM

 

 I had the "privilege" to use one of these warlock devices while in Iraq in early 2004. I won't go into the technical details of the equipment but I can state that it resulted in the direct deaths of 3 members in my convoy and the escape of the terrorists who shot them. I certainly hope that newer versions have fixed the issue that caused us so much trouble that January morning. I'd be more than willing to explain in detail what happened that day but not on such a public forum.

If your issue was "Comms" related then problems can still pop up.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/30/2008 6:06:13 PM
Industry presents counter IED solutions to U.S. Air Force


Members of an U.S. Electronic Systems Center office are working to minimize the threat of suicide bombings at the entry points of controlled-access zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The team has been working since late September to rapidly evaluate technologies designed to detect what are known as person-borne improvised explosive devices, or PBIEDs. The team, which serves as the Air Force Counter-IED Office, brought four contractors here during the last week of September and five more during the week of Oct. 20 to 24.

Each contractor representative was given a four-hour block to run the company's technologies through a precise testing protocol that required them to set up some distance away from a "target" zone. Inside the zone, a series of test subjects wearing loose-fitting robes over their clothes, meant to replicate those routinely worn in Afghanistan, entered one by one. Each walked forward and then retreated past a string of orange cones, allowing the detectors to examine them front and back.

Some of the walkers were carrying concealed, simulated IEDs, which had been carefully designed to mimic the types most commonly found in theater. Others were clean. It was up to the technology operator to determine which was which, and to pinpoint the location of a potential device when one was found.

"The most critical thing is that they're able to do it at stand-off range," said Ed Mason, chief of the Counter-IED Office at ESC. "If we have to be right up with the person in order to detect the device, that's obviously a huge problem."

Therefore, during the tests, checkpoint detectors operated at such a range, using a variety of technologies including infrared and X-ray backscatter to examine those who entered the zone.

In actual operation, if detectors target someone they suspect of carrying a PBIED, they would isolate the person and have him or her lift up or remove the outer clothing for a visual or camera-aided inspection, still at a safe distance, said Jim McMath, an engineer with the IEDD Program Office.

Department of Defense officials, through the Joint IED Defeat Office, known as JIEDDO, are looking to bring these capabilities into theater as quickly as possible.

"They came to us in late August and asked if we could start testing some of these technologies within five weeks, and by late September we had the first tests up and running," Mr. Mason said. "They knew we had the program management, acquisition and testing skill and experience to make it happen."

After each round of testing -- tests are expected to take place quarterly from here on -- the ESC team prepares a report. The report provides a statistical analysis of the Probability of Detection rate and the False Alarm Rate of each technology. Beyond that, the report factors in other variables, such as size, weight and ease of set up.

"We also determine how hard or simple it is to operate," Mr. Mason said. "If it takes a PhD to operate the equipment, we take that into consideration in the report. Likewise, if any Joe Schmoe can run it, we note that."

Once JIEDDO officials receive and analyze the Air Force report, they determine which technologies to continue pursuing and will likely provide funds for further technical development. They also also ask the ESC team to conduct more rigorous capabilities and limitation testing, which would be done in a sophisticated test environment, such as White Sands Missile Range, N.M., and Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

Ultimately, the ESC team, at the direction of JIEDDO officials, will put the companies with the most promising technologies on contract for an operational assessment in theater, where users can try it out in real-world action. If it works well, the final step is to get it into production and out to operators en masse.

Some people have asked why the Air Force is involved in efforts to defeat IEDs, which are after all a ground threat.

"DOD is interested in pursuing good ideas, no matter where they come from, and they'll turn to whichever service has the ability to test them out and get them fielded," Mr. Mason said.

In many cases, counter-IED efforts are achieved jointly. A current example involves the ongoing acquisition of 600 advanced metal detectors, which will be used to reduce threats during the January elections in Iraq.

The ESC team conducted the market research to determine what was needed, such as the ability to zone in on the location of an object on a body, and stabilizers that enable outdoor use regardless of wind or other weather conditions. They also conducted the market research into which vendors could supply what's needed quickly.

Specialists at the Army's Natick (Mass.) Soldiers Center, located about 10 miles from Hanscom, handled the actual procurement of the detectors and all associated equipment.

"This was a great example of the services working together to find the best and fastest solution," Mr. Mason said.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       10/30/2008 11:45:57 PM
Sure, Arty, blame it on us Commo pukes. That really hurts.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       10/31/2008 12:42:48 AM

Sure, Arty, blame it on us Commo pukes. That really hurts.

Wasnt blaming honest :).  I love my commo bubbas.  In this wonderful world of digital network centric (isert favourite buzzword here) warfare we now live in commo can make or break any "Field Problem"!!!   I was alluding to the fact that I have been the victim of an up an running warlock system that no one even knew was there!!!  Lets just say no one was talking to anybody!!!!  The "Hill", the Gunline, FDC and Range Control.  It was one big void of silence both on the Voice and Data Nets!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Baron    Comms   10/31/2008 12:25:30 PM




 



 I had the "privilege" to use one of these warlock devices while in Iraq in early 2004. I won't go into the technical details of the equipment but I can state that it resulted in the direct deaths of 3 members in my convoy and the escape of the terrorists who shot them. I certainly hope that newer versions have fixed the issue that caused us so much trouble that January morning. I'd be more than willing to explain in detail what happened that day but not on such a public forum.




If your issue was "Comms" related then problems can still pop up.


 As a matter of fact that is precisely what I was referring too and since I was the commo "guy" I know it was set up and working before we rolled that morning. You can surmise what happened latter.....
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Baron   10/31/2008 4:00:13 PM
No need to elaborate further I can visualise pretty well how thing played out for you guys.  Im not a commo guy (know how to set a radio and to set the rest of my gear to teh desired comms configuration, thats it) but I do know that you can talk through an operating warlock system but everything has to be configured just so.  In my opinion SINCGARS is a bit of a "Finnicky" beast at the best of times.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       10/31/2008 9:27:57 PM
Finnicky isn't the term I'd use to describe Sincgars.
 
Most of the words I use to describe those radios are banned from the board. I can easily picture what you're talking about without even having been there.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy