www.defensetech.org/archives/002170.html
So I wrote Ionatron off for while, despite more and more headlines about the firm and its "Joint IED Neutralizer" -- JIN, for short. Then, over the summer, I got a call from an Army general who had seen the thing in action. By using femtosecond lasers - light pulses that last less than a ten-trillionth of a second - JIN could carve conductive channels of ionized oxygen in the air. Through these thirty-foot channels, Ionatron's blaster sent man-made lighting bolts. Now we're just working on the engineering," the general told me. "I think we're going to solve that problem -- and this is just a guess -- in 12 months, maybe 18."
Last year, "then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul D Wolfowitz recommended investing $30 million in research and sending prototypes to Iraq for testing," the LA Times reports.
"But 10 months later -- and after a prototype destroyed about 90% of the IEDs laid in its path during a battery of tests -- not a single JIN has been shipped to Iraq," the Times notes. "To many in the military, the delay in deploying the vehicles, which resemble souped-up, armor-plated golf carts, is a case study in the Pentagon's inability to bypass cumbersome peacetime procedures to meet the urgent demands of troops in the field." "The decision has been made that it's not yet mature enough," said Army Brig.
Iraq is "not the place to be testing unproven technology." But the Marine Corps believes otherwise and recently decided to circumvent the testing schedule and send JIN units to Al Anbar province in western Iraq... Based on their performance, Marine commanders said, they hope the device can eventually be used throughout Iraq. Just about every arm of the Defense Department that deals with R&D has been struggling to figure out when to send new technologies to the field. Wait too long, and you're robbing troops of a valuable tool. Field a gadget too quickly, the un-worked-out kinks can ruin its reputation in the military for a while. Troops can even get hurt, relying on an unstable machine.
The problems were small and fixable enough that the Stryker was sent out "four or five years" earlier than what the old regulations would've required. "We can't wait for a perfect solution to get a weapon to the field." The Times pairs the JIN hold-up with the "military's failure to provide sufficient body armor and adequate armor for transport vehicles." There's a big difference between getting proven life-savers to a combat zone, and figuring out when something brand new is good enough to be deployed.
Lasers and Ray Guns Latest Comments Technology is not the answer to IED's in Iraq or Afganistan. We are waisting milions of dollars on high tech solutions to the low-tech applications the bad guys are using. This is just another expensive toy that distracts the government from attacking the real problem, of the terrorist organization itself. As pointed out nuturalizing an IED once its found is simple, its the finding them thats hard. Better yet is lets insure the damn things arn't built and placed on the roadside to begin with at all. Just as powerful as the explosive is the liberal anti-bush/anti-war on terrorism media coverage, they provide the terrorists the worldwide stregic impact, damage assessment, lessons learned, and encourgement they need to carry on. So long as we only focus on the device we will never solve the problem. Posted by: Desert Warrior at February 14, 2006 08:00 AM I'm very happy to read some good news about how we are attacking this assymetric IED threat to our troops with our own arsenal of high tech innovation. It dosen't take much immagination to foresee that the threat of IEDs can easily migrate into other theaters of military operation outside of Iraq and even pose a possible future domestic terror threat. Given the fact that IESs have accounted for most of our casualties in Iraq I'm shocked to hear that the beauracrats are still taking a cautious tact in pushing this technology for deployment at the front. Between the agencies of DARPA, the Secret Service, Homeland Security, and the Pentagon, isn't there any of them who can fast track the development of this project given its potential to counter so many furure multiple threats?
Les Allison at February 14, 2006 03:54 AM But if the IED is wearing a tinfoil hat (or at least is wrapped in conductive material) it won't work.... Posted by: Wembley at February 13, 2006 03:21 PM Well, JIN detects and neutralises all in one by arcing and zapping all in one go. Posted by: CHarles at February 13, 2006 01:13 PM Bomb Buster for Iraq Hits Pentagon Snag Army brass says a device that destroyed 90% of roadside explosives in tests needs further study. By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer February 12, 2006 WASHINGTON A new high-tech vehicle that destroys roadside bombs has passed a series of US military tests but has not yet been sent into battle, prompting charges that Pentagon bureaucracy is slowing the effort to protect American troops in Iraq. Joseph Votel, the commander of a Pentagon task force in charge of finding ways to combat the makeshift bombs known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, endorsed development of the vehicle, called the Joint IED Neutralizer. The remote-controlled device blows up roadside bombs with a directed electrical charge, and based on Votel's assessment, then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul D Wolfowitz recommended investing $30 million in research and sending prototypes to Iraq for testing. But 10 months later and after a prototype destroyed about 90% of the IEDs laid in its path during a battery of tests not a single JIN has been shipped to Iraq. To many in the military, the delay in deploying the vehicles, which resemble souped-up, armor-plated golf carts, is a case study in the Pentagon's inability to bypass cumbersome peacetime procedures to meet the urgent demands of troops in the field. More than half of US combat deaths in Iraq have been caused by roadside bombs, and the number of such attacks nearly doubled last year compared with 2004. The Pentagon has identified the improvised bomb problem as one of its top priorities. Two years ago, the top US commander in the Middle East, Gen. John P Abizaid, called for a "Manhattan Project" to cut down on roadside bombing casualties, but many believe that his level of concern has not been matched in Washington. "There's a bureaucracy that really slows things down, and sometimes people don't have the same sense of urgency," said one officer involved in the effort to counter the bombs. The officer declined to be identified for this article because he feared retribution from superiors. The Defense Department under Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld has faced similar charges of failing to act quickly to protect troops in combat. Dissatisfaction with the Pentagon's overall response to the IED threat in Iraq follows complaints about the military's failure to provide sufficient body armor and adequate armor for transport vehicles. A JIN prototype was tested extensively in mid-September at the Army's Yuma Proving Grounds in the Arizona desert, destroying most of the roadside bombs put in its way. But the Pentagon's IED task force said that the device required further testing, and that a decision to delay deployment had been made jointly by Pentagon officials and commanders in Iraq. "The decision has been made that it's not yet mature enough," said Army Brig. Dan Allyn, deputy director of the task force, which was recently renamed the Joint IED Defeat Organization. Iraq is "not the place to be testing unproven technology." But the Marine Corps believes otherwise and recently decided to circumvent the testing schedule and send JIN units to Al Anbar province in western Iraq. Marines have been deployed in the restive area, home to the cities of Fallouja and Ramadi, since February 2004. The Marines are now making final preparations to deploy a number of JIN prototypes to Al Anbar. Based on their performance, Marine commanders said, they hope the device can eventually be used throughout Iraq. The Joint IED Neutralizer, built by a private contractor in Arizona, can be driven in front of a military convoy or operated separately to clear road...
|
http://csua.com/feed/