Special Report on Jamming Systems by The Magazine Production Company

SPECIAL REPORT

Jamming Systems

Jamming the Future – Safety versus Operability The Central Role of Electronic Countermeasures For All Armed Forces The Discovery of German Electronic Secrets that Weren’t Believed but Proved to be True and Useful JIEDDO (The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization) its Success and its Critics Assessing JIEDDO’s Work in 2011 and a Remarkable Conclusion for ‘Man’s Best Friend’

Sponsored by

Published by Global Business Media

www.msinstruments.co.uk

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

SPECIAL REPORT

Jamming Systems

Contents

Foreword

Mary Dub, Editor

Jamming the Future – Safety versus Operability

Alexander F. Wüst, CEO, H.P. Marketing & Consulting Wüst GmbH Sponsored by

Published by Global Business Media

Published by Global Business Media Global Business Media Limited 62 The Street Ashtead Surrey KT21 1AT United Kingdom Switchboard: +44 (0)1737 850 939 Fax: +44 (0)1737 851 952 Email: info@globalbusinessmedia.org Website: www.globalbusinessmedia.org Publisher Kevin Bell Business Development Director Marie-Anne Brooks Editor Mary Dub Senior Project Manager Steve Banks Advertising Executives Michael McCarthy Abigail Coombes Production Manager Paul Davies For further information visit: www.globalbusinessmedia.org The opinions and views expressed in the editorial content in this publication are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the views of any organisation with which they may be associated. Material in advertisements and promotional features may be considered to represent the views of the advertisers and promoters. The views and opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily express the views of the Publishers or the Editor. While every care has been taken in the preparation of this publication, neither the Publishers nor the Editor are responsible for such opinions and views or for any inaccuracies in the articles.

© 2011. The entire contents of this publication are protected by copyright. Full details are available from the Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

H.P. Marketing & Consulting Wüst GmbH Overcoming the Problems of Increased Power The Second Option A Cautionary Tale Conclusion

The Central Role of Electronic Countermeasures For All Armed Forces

Marushka Dubova, Defence Correspondent

The Secret and Highly Effective Role of Radar in World War Two Use by Air Forces The Role of Stealth Technology in Reducing Signature The Future Critical Role of Electronic Countermeasures

The Discovery of German Electronic Secrets that Weren’t Believed But Proved to be True and Useful

Meredith Llewellyn, Lead Contributor

“The Battle of the Beams”

JIEDDO (The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization) its Success and its Critics

Marushka Dubova, Defence Correspondent

ISAF Casualty Levels The Creation of JIEDDO United States Army Counter IED Products ‘Defeating the Device’ Robotics Advances C-IED The Wheelbarrow New Criticism of Counter C-IED products New Developments Above to ‘Disrupt the Network’

Assessing JIEDDO’s Work in 2011 and a Remarkable Conclusion for ‘Man’s Best Friend’

Don McBarnet, Staff Writer

Congressional Concern Dogs and Trained Dog Handlers the Best C-IED Countermeasure

References

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 1

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

Foreword

HE UNSEEN and secret nature of jamming technologies is not a true indicator of their importance on the battlefield. Without countermeasures, warfare would be even more lethal than it is. Countermeasures save lives. But it is in counter insurgency operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the fight to defeat the deadly effect of Improvised Explosive Devices that countermeasures have come into their own. Nevertheless, there is still work to be done to stay on top of the endless secret spiral of countermeasure/upgrade/response. The first part of this Special Report looks at the development of jamming devices over the last 25 years from the unsophisticated ‘block all frequencies’ method to today’s fully digital systems covering up to 6 Ghz and delivering an output power of up to 1200 Watts. It goes on to examine two systems – reactive jamming and the programming of frequency gaps, and points out the deficiencies of both, and goes on to report on the work being carried out on the integration of an infrared communication system, being considered as the safest option. The central role of electronic countermeasures, both by defensive and offensive forces is covered in the second piece, which touches, also, on the use by air forces and the role of stealth technology in reducing signature. In the third article, the Report recalls an intriguing tale of the transmission of secret information on new electronic systems from German scientists during World War Two. The secret package was transmitted via Norway to London allowing British forces to produce countermeasures to combat electromagnetic guidance systems for German bombers in the Second World War. It demonstrates the value of insightful scientific thinking by the distinguished British physicist, Dr R.V. Jones. Since 2006 billions of US dollars have been allocated to JIEDDO (the Joint Improvised Explosives Defeat Organisation). The third part of the Report points out that some in Congress argue that there has been poor accountability for the money spent and the funding has been challenged. Nevertheless, the effect of the work put into attacking the IED menace to ISAF troops in 2010/11 has begun to have effect in superior battlefield surveillance with aerostats and a determined effort to disrupt the network of people placing IEDs on roads and pathways. The end piece of the Report is both ironic and charming; despite the massive spend on technology, many ordnance disposal experts now recognize that trained dogs and experienced handlers may now make the most effective detectors of IEDs. Mary Dub Editor

Mary Dub has covered the defence field in the United States and the UK as a television broadcaster, journalist and conference manager. Focused by a Masters in War Studies from King’s College, London, she annotates and highlights the interplay of armies, governments and industry.

2 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

Jamming the Future – Safety versus Operability Alexander F. Wüst, CEO, H.P. Marketing & Consulting Wüst GmbH

H.P. Marketing & Consulting Wüst GmbH, is a German developer and manufacturer of jamming systems that has been in the business for more than 25 years. With customers in more than 50 countries, H.P. Marketing & Consulting Wüst GmbH is a supplier to the German Bundeswehr and have NATO clearance and stock numbers for our systems.

Had I written this text ten years ago, I would have begun by diligently explaining what a jammer is, how it works and why you might need one. Today, that situation has changed of course. Due to the very real presence of the RCIED (Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Devices) threat all over the world, everyone involved in security matters has at least a basic understanding of jamming systems that he or she acquired while finding ways to combat the IED threat.

H.P. Marketing & Consulting Wüst GmbH Since H. P. Marketing began operations, numerous companies have come and gone. Most recently, two of the major German global players have begun developing jamming systems. Even though they have received government funding and have impressive resources, the results have been mediocre at best, simply because they have had to start from scratch and lack the experience of other companies who have been in the market for some time. Eventually they may be successful, but I believe that there will always be a place for smaller companies such as H.P. Marketing. It is like comparing a store bought suit with one that has been hand crafted by a gifted tailor. We measure our clients thoroughly, give them exactly what they need and try always to be there for them. When we started developing our first systems 25 years ago, the market was rather small and the requirements basic – block all frequencies, no matter what! We have come a long way since then – from analog signal generators and our first jammers with only a range of 20-1000 Mhz and a few watts output power, to fully digital systems, covering up to 6 Ghz and delivering an output power of up to 1200 Watts.

Overcoming the Problems of Increased Power It is that vast amount of power and the increasing frequency coverage that present a whole new set of problems. There is the ever present danger of jamming our own equipment or that of our troops’ communications and GPS and those even of civilian bystanders. Whole cell phone base stations and TV stations may shut down while driving past and every communication system in the vicinity of the jammer may be cut. This is often considered to be only a small collateral inconvenience that is usually accepted by the commanding officer and also by governments, since it is of only brief in nature and does not cause irreparable damage. But what about the convoy itself and the cars that are inside the jamming bubble? How can we ensure that they continue to communicate? At the moment there are two ways to achieve this. The first one is to use a reactive jamming system that only emits a jamming signal when it has detected a frequency which is either not flagged as friendly or is stronger than the background noise and cannot be categorized. As with every technology, of course, there is a downside. Will the system be fast enough in the case of an attempt to detonate a planted roadside remote controlled bomb? What if the attacker uses one of the frequencies flagged as friendly? What if the attacker is closer to the bomb than the jammer, thus enabling his signal to reach the bomb before reaching the jammer? When customers ask for a reactive jamming system, I always tell them that I would not recommend such a system and would not be held responsible in case the system did not work properly or were circumvented in one of the aforementioned ways.

The Second Option But what to do then? Let us consider option number two – the programming of frequency WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 3

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

There is the ever present danger of jamming our own equipment or that of our troopsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; communications and GPS and those even of civilian bystanders. gaps to allow communication between vehicles in a convoy. At H.P. Marketing have had many discussions with customers about frequency gaps, and have given much thought to the subject within the company. As a result, we have decided to offer this technology to our customers. However, we still do not recommend its use since it leaves the user vulnerable to attack. Of course there are scenarios where communication is unavoidable. We understand that, but since all radios, off-the-shelf as well as of military grade, are transmitting in the same few bands there are always hundreds of other devices that could be used to detonate an RCIED once a gap is open and this is a result of the nature of a gap. Of course, we can make a gap that is only a few kilohertz wide, only allowing one particular radio, with a particular frequency to operate in that band. However, this has a certain impact on the whole band, because the digital signal generator has to slow down the signal in order to be able to create such a narrow gap and when the signal slows down, the jamming distance and effectiveness may decrease. In our opinion, this situation has to be avoided at all costs. As stated above, we do not have faith in reactive systems, at least not for convoy protection or IED disposal, and we want to be able to tell our customers that they do not have to open up any gaps and thus make themselves vulnerable to attacks. This is why H.P. Marketing is currently working on the integration of an infrared communication system, to ensure passenger safety at all times and retain the ability to communicate. 4 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

A Cautionary Tale A story an officer once told me comes to mind. The officer was in charge of security for a foreign president who was visiting his country. They were driving in a convoy when the president demanded that the jammer be switched off because he wanted to make a phone call. So they drove 15 minutes through unsafe terrain with an entire GSM band unblocked. Fortunately, nothing happened, but the officer told me that, as long as it was possible to switch off either the whole system or individual bands, there is a danger that this would be done by either the operators or the VIPs. He requested a modification that denied him the ability to turn off the system once the convoy had begun moving, which we gladly installed.

Conclusion In conclusion, it can be seen that the possibilities to incapacitate yourself and your systems are nearly limitless. However, when assessing requirements for a jamming system, unexpected obstacles and unforeseen problems are likely to arise. This is why you need a strong and experienced partner, one that is patient and worthy of your trust, will help you along the way and will be there for you in the future. H. P. Marketing have always tried to be that partner. We have always strived for a life-long relationship between ourselves and our customers, because it is your life that we are there to protect and we gladly accept that responsibility.

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

The Central Role of Electronic Countermeasures For All Armed Forces Marushka Dubova, Defence Correspondent

“1-18. Electronic warfare support is a division of electronic warfare involving actions tasked by, or under the direct control of, an operational commander to search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and conduct of future operations (JP 3-13.1).”1 United States Field Manual No. 3-36 February 2009

Jamming or electronic countermeasures are now a key component of all fighting forces armory. Since the late 19th century they have had a very specific and vital role as both a defensive and offensive force. “Electronic protection protects from the effects of electronic attack (friendly and enemy), while defensive electronic attack primarily protects against lethal attacks by denying enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum to guide or trigger weapons.”2 These activities are carried out by: countermeasures, electromagnetic deception, electromagnetic intrusion, electromagnetic jamming, electromagnetic pulse, and electronic probing. In some cases the measures are purely defensive and use expendables (flares and active decoys), jammers, towed decoys, directed-energy infrared countermeasure systems, and counter-radio-controlled improvised-explosive-device systems.3

The Secret and Highly Effective Role of Radar in World War Two A strategic and highly important part of countermeasures is their secrecy, from which they derive maximum effectiveness. It was this mysterious and obviously unknown quality that added to the impact of radar at the beginning of the Second World War. The term ‘radar’ was coined in 1940 by the U.S. Navy as an acronym for ‘radio detection and ranging’. It was commonly understood to have a direction finding capability but its ability also to detect range provided important warning advice to British defensive forces.

Use by Air Forces ECM is used by air forces to protect aircraft by

electrical or electronic devices designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar or other detection systems, like infrared (IR) or lasers. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly. It is used effectively to protect aircraft from guided missiles. Defensive ECM includes using blip enhancement and jamming of missile terminal homers.4 Stealth technology also termed LO (low observable) technology is a sub-discipline of military tactics and passive electronic countermeasures, which cover a range of techniques used with aircraft, ships, submarines, and missiles, to make them less visible (ideally invisible) to radar, infrared, sonar and other detection methods.

The Role of Stealth Technology in Reducing Signature In 1958, where earlier attempts in preventing radar tracking of its U-2 spy planes during the Cold War by the Soviet Union had been unsuccessful, designers turned to develop a particular shape for planes designed to reduce detection, by redirecting electromagnetic waves from radars. Radar-absorbent material was also tested and made to reduce or block radar signals that reflect off from the surface of planes. Such changes to shape and surface composition form stealth technology and is currently used on the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit “Stealth Bomber”. This concept was first explored through camouflage by blending into the background visual clutter. As the potency of detection and interception technologies (radar, IRST, surface-to-air missiles) have increased over time, so too has the extent to which the design and operation of military personnel and vehicles have been affected in WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 5

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

Once an army or an enemy has used a jamming device successfully there is pressure on the opposing side to discover and develop capabilities to overcome the newest form of jamming device or countermeasure.

response. Some military uniforms are treated with chemicals to reduce their infrared signature. A modern “stealth” vehicle will generally have been designed from the outset to have reduced or controlled signature. Varying degrees of stealth can be achieved. The exact level and nature of stealth embodied in a particular design is determined by the prediction of likely threat capabilities.

The Future Critical Role of Electronic Countermeasures The United States Army, as part of its TRADOC policy for future strategy 2016-2028, places great emphasis on the importance of the United States having a leading role in technology development and in the critical role in the fast moving world of electronic countermeasures as part of full spectrum operations. Because once an army or an enemy has used a jamming device successfully there is pressure on the opposing side to discover and develop capabilities to overcome the newest form of jamming device or countermeasure. Therefore in the future strategy document emphasis is placed on: “The cyber/electromagnetic contest (which) involves gaining advantages in the cyberspace domain and electromagnetic spectrum, maintaining those advantages, and denying the same to enemies.”5

6 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

The Discovery of German Electronic Secrets that Weren’t Believed But Proved to be True and Useful Meredith Llewellyn, Lead Contributor

It was the secret transmission of what is known as the “Oslo report” in 1940 that passed to the British a summary of the state of knowledge of the Germans on the important area of electronic and radar that provided information to the British that some claim to have been more important than the cracking of the Enigma code. This is the story. On 4 November 1939, Captain Hector Boyes, the Naval Attaché at the British Embassy in Oslo, received an anonymous letter offering him a secret report on the latest German technical developments. To receive the report Captain Boyes had to send a message via the BBC World Service. They had to broadcast “Hullo, Hier ist London” rather than their usual greeting. This was done. A week later a parcel arrived with a type-written document and two instruments. This document was passed to MI6 and to an outstanding young physicist called Dr. R.V. Jones, working on “Scientific Intelligence”. Looking back on that time in an autobiographical book written in 1989 he wrote: “It was probably the best single report received from any source during the war. ...Overall, of course, the contributions from other sources such as the Enigma decrypts, aerial photographs, and reports from the Resistance, outweighed the Oslo contribution, but these were all made from organizations involving many, sometimes thousands of individuals and operating throughout most of the war. The Oslo Report, we believed, had been written by a single individual who in one great flash had given us a synoptic glimpse of much of what was foreshadowed in German military electronics.”

“The Battle of the Beams” Recognising the importance of this document, ‘the Oslo Report’ led to Dr R.V. Jones being tasked to research “new German weapons”. The first of these was a radio navigation system, which the Germans called Knickebein. The new information that the typed documents offered was that: “The actual implementation of a radio detection system in Germany is revealed and its range

“The Oslo Report, we believed, had been written by a single individual who in one great flash had given us a synoptic glimpse of much of what was foreshadowed in German military electronics.” capability (120 kms) is specified. Finally, progress in research on yet another radio detection system working at the then ultra-high frequencies around 50 cms (600 MHz) is mentioned.”6 This, as Jones soon determined, was a development of the Lorenz blind landing system and enabled an aircraft to fly along a chosen heading with accuracy. At Jones’s request, Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered an RAF search aircraft to look for the Knickebein radio signals in the frequency range which Jones had predicted. Having found the German frequency ranges, the British were able to build jammers whose effect was to “bend” the Knickebein beams so that German bombers spent months scattering their bomb loads over the British countryside rather than towns and cities. This started the “Battle of the Beams” which lasted throughout much of World War II with the Germans developing new radio navigation systems and the British developing countermeasures to them. Jones frequently had to battle against entrenched interests in the armed forces, but, in addition to enjoying Churchill’s confidence, had strong support from, among others, Churchill’s scientific advisor F. D. Lindemann and the Chief of the Air Staff Sir Charles Portal. WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 7

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

JIEDDO (The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization) its Success and its Critics Marushka Dubova, Defence Correspondent

”IEDs are still responsible for the greatest number of our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are making progress against the enemy’s effective use of them,” said Lt. Gen. Michael Oates, Director of JIEDDO.”

There is a strong perception, backed up by the casualty figures, that the number of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) causing casualties among Afghan civilians and ISAF forces has increased between 2009, 2010 and 2011. Despite the best efforts of the organization targeted at countering IEDS, The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), this still continues to be the case. This article assesses the level of casualties, recent thinking about methods to disrupt the placement of IEDS in the path of ISAF patrols and vehicles, and what new methodologies are proving successful at the moment.

ISAF Casualty Levels The death toll reported by icasualties.com in Afghanistan in recent years is stark. Of the 1,582 ISAF forces that have died since 2001, the numbers killed is rising: 2009 316, 2010 499 and 2011 136. For JIEDDO this is the challenge. In February 2010 USA Today reported a new JIEDDO way of looking at the numbers of killed and wounded: “About one-sixth of the bombs used by insurgents in January ended up wounding or killing troops compared with the one-quarter of such bombs that caused casualties in August, according to figures from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, the Pentagon’s agency for combating makeshift bombs. In January, 215 IED attacks wounded or killed troops compared with 341 attacks that caused casualties in August. That dramatic reduction occurred even though the number of IEDs planted has remained at between 1,300 and 1,500 a month during that time.” “IEDs are still responsible for the greatest number of our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are making progress against the enemy’s effective use of them,” said Lt. Gen. Michael Oates, Director of JIEDDO.” 7

8 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

The Creation of JIEDDO JIEDDO was set up in 2006 to combat the growing menace of Improvised Explosive Devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. It started out as a 12-person Army anti-homemade bomb task force and changed into a 1,900 person behemoth with nearly $21 billion to spend and was headed up by a four star general.8 It had a very specific brief: “Counter-IED solutions cover a broad range of both military functions and forms. Functions include intelligence, surveillance, electronic warfare, maneuver, targeting, fire support, force protection, and information operations. Forms include software, airborne sensors, ground sensors, vehicle systems, armor recipes, jammers, spoofers, scanners, robots, and a gamut of contracted services. To help manage these efforts. JIEDDO partitions the Counter-IED solution space into three Lines of Operation: Attack the Network (AtN), Defeat the Device (DtD), and Train the Force (TtF).”9

United States Army Counter IED Products ‘Defeating the Device’ DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), in association with JIEDDO, has also worked to produce a range of instruments to counter IEDS. An example is dynamic spectrum allocation, which enables devices to change frequencies when they sense interference, which would negate jamming by the opposing force. Jamming is a major weapon in the war against insurgents in Afghanistan, used to disrupt communications and prevent triggering of IEDs. But technology marches on and wireless devices like cellphones are getting harder to jam. An example is dynamic spectrum allocation, which enables devices to change frequencies when they sense interference which would negate jamming. So DARPA is launching the Behavioral Learning for Adaptive Electronic Warfare (BLADE) program to develop

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

software algorithms that will allow EW systems to “learn” automatically how to jam new threats in the field. BLADE will include a module that detects a new threat and learns its characteristics, operating over a very wide frequency range and in a highly cluttered RF environment. DARPA wants this module to be able to find out as much as it can about the threat, including its transmission techniques and network protocols, so that other BLADE modules can automatically synthesize countermeasures then monitor the threat radio to assess the effectiveness of the jamming. BLADE could jam automatically or provide the threat and countermeasure information to an electronic warfare officer who would decide if and when to apply jamming. BLADE is aimed at use with vehicle-mounted jammers, such as the CREW (Counter RadioControlled IED Electronic Warfare) systems now in use in Afghanistan. But the demonstration program could include an airborne jamming node, possibly an unmanned aircraft.10

Robotics Advances C-IED Developments in robotics have also been an integral part of the countermeasures against IEDS. TALON robots developed by Qinetiq, North America have become a component of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team. Similarly, the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) has pioneered Dragon Runner, a small, rugged robot that weighs between 10-20kg depending on the chosen configuration, also made by QinetiQ. It can be easily carried by a soldier in a backpack and is robust enough to operate in rough terrain to help protect troops. The variant selected by the UK MOD is equipped with a manipulator arm to assist with the disarming of Improvised Explosive Devices but the versatility of the Dragon Runner platform means that it can also be configured for a variety of other reconnaissance and surveillance operations.11

The Wheelbarrow In competition to QinetiQ’s product, Northrop Grumman have developed a new version of the Wheelbarrow robot in use as a C-IED device. “We are continually developing and expanding our products and their capabilities to meet the evolving needs of our military and civil security customers in detecting and disposing of improvised explosive devices,” said Kevin Rooney, Managing Director Unmanned Ground Vehicles for Northrop Grumman’s Information Systems sector in Europe. “This latest design of our well proven Wheelbarrow vehicle combines greater speed, mobility, exceptional payload and reach capabilities with the latest control, communications and camera specifications to offer unsurpassed performance.”

Key features of the Wheelbarrow Mk9 include: digital communications for improved quality and greater security; enhanced user-friendly command console with touch-screen facility and joystick control; wireless hand controller for local remote control and; greater functionality including preset positions. The vehicle also has a dedicated separate data channel for additional sensor integration. Its performance characteristics rank it among the most capable vehicles available in its class: it can climb a 45-degree stairway; has a modular telescopic arm with 7-degrees of freedom and a maximum reach of more than 6m; a maximum speed of 5km/hour; and a lift capacity of 150kg.12

New Criticism of Counter C-IED products However, writing in May 2011, the trend line for IED’S in Afghanistan has demonstrated little impact from these new measures as the Washington Post reported: “The number of U.S. troops killed by roadside bombs in Afghanistan soared by 60 percent last year, while the number of those wounded almost tripled, new U.S. military statistics show.”13 The response by JIEDDO’S Director was detailed. Army Lt. Gen. Michael L. Oates, noted that the percentage of IED attacks that have inflicted casualties on U.S., NATO and Afghan forces, as well as Afghan civilians, has actually declined in recent months, from 25 percent last summer to 16 percent in December, according to U.S. military statistics. “My main concern is driving these effective attacks down,” he said. “We’re enjoying success there, and I do believe we’re going to continue to reduce [the enemy’s] effectiveness.” “The narrative has been that we’re losing the IED fight in Afghanistan, and that’s not accurate,” he said. “The whole idea isn’t to destroy the network. That’s maybe impossible. It’s to disrupt them.” With an annual budget of about $3.5 billion, JIEDDO is supposed to speed the deployment of counter-IED programs to Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics, including members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office and some military officers, have said that JIEDDO in the past moved too slowly and wasted money on unproved technologies. Such concerns took on new urgency in December 2009, when President Obama announced an expansion of the Afghan war and deployed 30,000 additional troops.14

New Developments Above to ‘Disrupt the Network’ In further determined attempts to disrupt the network to counter IEDs, blimps called aerostats have been used fitted with spy cameras that track movements as they hover at 2,000 ft WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 9

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

With an annual budget of about $3.5 billion, JIEDDO is supposed to speed the deployment of counter-IED programs to Iraq and Afghanistan.

above the ground. Proven in action by the Israeli army, they are now equipped with new spy-camera technology, known as Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance. As more than 60 are now in operation, the intention is to give a powerful feeling of ongoing surveillance with the intention of spotting and deterring those intending to place IEDs. Cameras now on the blimps have a range of 20 miles and can zoom in on people and locations, day or night. Video is transmitted to operators on the ground, who can steer the airships with joysticks. “It just provides a level of situational awareness that otherwise wouldn’t be there,” Ashton B. Carter, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer said in an interview. He said the blimps also provide a deterrent. “They are easily visible to Afghans on the ground, who can never be sure whether they are being tracked.” The intention is to detect patterns of movement that can provide information about how insurgent networks function. Aerostats have been used in combination with Global Hawk drones.

10 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

Assessing JIEDDO’s Work in 2011 and a Remarkable Conclusion for ‘Man’s Best Friend’ Don McBarnet, Staff Writer

In defence against the attacks on JIEDDO’s output, General Monty Meigs, former Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, JIEDDO investigated 857 new technologies for countering actual IED devices in 2006, started work on 282 of them, eventually fielding 52. To attack bomb-making networks, it looked at 182 new technologies and fielded 21; it considered 42 new training technologies and fielded 9 of them. By the end of 2010, JIEDDO says, it had invested in approximately 1,000 counter-IED initiatives, of which 219 had been approved to be taken over by the military services or commands.

Congressional Concern However, this kind of defence has not been enough to stem criticism in congress. Capitol Hill also became frustrated that it was not getting the information it needed to evaluate JIEDDO’s performance. The issue finally came to a head when the House Armed Services Committee threatened in its report on the 2010 defense budget to withhold half of JIEDDO’s money “until the Committee is provided JIEDDO’s detailed budget and program information.” The Senate was unable to carry out its threat in the face of the rising death toll to IEDS, but the anger at the level of waste in the face of such high spending is salutary.15

Dogs and Trained Dog Handlers the Best C-IED Countermeasure After all the money spent on technology there is a remarkable conclusion to this Report. The most common ingredient in Afghan IEDs is ammonium nitrate, which is used to make fertilizer. It’s not a metal and therefore hard to detect. However dogs have a special talent for sniffing it out. As

For all the emphasis on the latest technologies, its ‘man’s best friend’, his dog, that provides the best detection and protection to troops against IEDS. a result, the Army and Marines have sent about 450 explosives-detecting dogs to Afghanistan, boosting the size of the canine corps by 35 percent more than last year. For all the emphasis on the latest technologies, its ‘man’s best friend’, his dog, that provides the best detection and protection to troops against IEDS. As Lt. General Michael Oates, JIEDDO’s outgoing director put it: “there are no silver bullets that are going to solve this problem”. Indeed, the most effective IED detectors today are the same as before JIEDDO, and they don’t hum, whir, shoot, scan, or fly. They talk. And they bark. The best bomb detectors, Oates says, are still dogs working with handlers, local informants, and the trained soldier’s eye.

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 11

SPECIAL REPORT: JAMMING SYSTEMS

References: 1

United States Field Manual No. 3-36 February 2009

Wikipedia electronic countermeasure (ECM)

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-7-8.pdf

The Oslo Report 1939—Nazi Secret Weapons Forfeited By Frithjof A.S. Sterrenburg

Better IED detection reduces casualties 37% in Afghanistan By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY Updated 2/17/2011

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/03/27/3799/jieddo-manhattan-project- bombed/page/0/6 Pentagon unit created to fight IEDs has spent billions, but casualties remain high

Value of Counter-IED Solutions at the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization § Ronald F. A. Woodaman‡, Andrew G. Loerch†, Kathryn B. Laskey† † Systems Engineering and Operations Research Department ‡ Center of Excellence in Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence George Mason University 4400 University Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 USA

DARPA’s BLADE to Sharpen IED Jammers Posted by Graham Warwick at 7/15/2010 1:37 PM CDT

Dragon runner Qinetiq http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2009/4th_quarter/mod_ orders_drag

http://www.defencetalk.com/northrop-launches-of-wheelbarrow-bomb-disposal-robot-25704/#ixzz1MnSSXOEL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012506691_2.html By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 25, 2011; 10:50 PM

By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 25, 2011; 10:50

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/03/27/3799/jieddo-manhattan-project-bombed/page/0/6 Pentagon unit created to fight IEDs has spent billions, but casualties remain high By Peter Cary and Nancy Youssef 8:01 am, March 27, 2011

12 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

Defence Industry Reports… the Defence Reports….the leadingIndustry specialist combined leading specialist online research andcombined networking online research and networking resource for senior military and resource for senior military and defence industry professionals.

defence industry professionals.

•

Up•to Up thetominute Industry and Technology Newsand and other content available the minute Industry and Technology News other content available to to all site users on a free of charge, open access basis. all site users on a free of charge, open access basis.

•

Qualiﬁ ed signed up members to access accesspremium premium content Special • Qualified signed up membersare areable able to content Special Reports and interact with their peers varietyofof advanced online Reports and interact with their peersusing using aa variety advanced online networking tools. networking tools.

•

• Designed to help users identifynew newtechnical technical solutions, understand the the Designed to help users identify solutions, understand implications of different technicalchoices choices and and select best solutions implications of different technical selectthe the best solutions available.

•

available. Thought Leadership – Advice and guidance from internationally recognised • Thought Leadership - Advice and guidance from internationally recognised defence industry key opinion leaders.

•

Peer Input – Contributions from senior military personnel and defence • Peer Input - Contributions from senior military personnel and defence industry industry professionals.

•

Independent Editorial Content – Expert and authoritative analysis from • Independent Editorial Content - Expert and authoritative analysis from award award winning journalists and leading industry commentators.

•

Unbiased Supplier Provided Content.

•

Designed to facilitate debate. • Designed to facilitate debate

•

Written to thetohighest professional • Written the highest professionalstandards. standards

defence industry key opinion leaders

professionals

winning journalists and leading industry commentators

•

Unbiased Supplier Provided Content

Visit: www.defenceindustryreports.com

Global Business Media