Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Real-Life Ray Gun: Say When?

JIN.jpgI was skeptical, when I first heard about the idea of using lasers and man-made lightning to detonate explosives at a distance. Not only did the technology sound fantastic. But the company pushing the real-life ray gun, Tucscon's Ionatron Inc., seemed so damn squirrely -- long on press releases and shady political connections, short on specifics about how their technology really worked. And that's before you start digging into the questionable stock deals and patent violations. 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 XXXX-foot channels, Ionatron's blaster sent man-made lighting bolts. And they actually seem to work at neutralizing bombs. "We understand the physics of what we're trying to do. 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."

It turns out the general wasn't the only one who was impressed. Last year, "then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz recommended investing $30 million in research and sending prototypes to Iraq for testing," the L.A. Times reports. Ionatron CEO Tom Dearmin told eDefense that the first of 12 units would be in Iraq by the end of July.

"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. Gen. Dan Allyn, deputy director of... 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... 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.

Usually, the Pentagon errs on the side of caution. Some of the most valuable tools in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the Predator drone, the Stryker armored vehicle -- were deemed not ready for prime time by Defense Department testers.

But despite "thousands of little items found wrong with the Stryker," it was fielded anyway, Army Test and Evaluation Command chief Major General James Myles told me recently. 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. So what if the brakes don't work in the extreme cold? "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." But that's not quite right. 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. That goes double for ray guns.

UPDATE 03/21/06 9:38 AM: This post, and some of the comments to it, have been modified in the interest of operational security.

Comments

This must be the silly season. Too many young boys think that war is just a video game. Deaths are not avoided by destroying stationary IEDs that have already been identified as stationary IEDs.

How about a DNA scanner that can detect suicide bombers in realtime! Then you can float these in space and scan the whole population of the world, well at least the one's you catch in the carpark walking between the mall and the car, and those on the golf course.
PS Don't forget to downplay the 10% issue for the sake of saving lives.

Posted by: arnie at January 13, 2008 12:46 AM


what is the Amount of reward for reducing losses from IED's in Iraq and the Far east? We can reduce your losses to near zero In a short period of time and maintain near zero losses.
Neutron Corp. Master Duffy 5751 170th ave woodlake mn 56297

Posted by: Master Duffy at November 17, 2007 02:42 PM


Maarten- This seems to be above your paycheck. Get a dictionary and use it. Your ideas or the ones you quote from John Kerry may then be taken seriously.
As we adapt our tactics so do the insurgents; we, wervicemen and women, need to stay a step ahead. Eventually, Iraqis will step up and take control of their country. Foreign aid happens... Days of the "people rising" have been eliminated in part to technological advances. Sit-ins don't work when life is not valued by fanatical Muslims.
Don't comment on what you don't know; that is ignorance.

Posted by: JP at December 14, 2006 04:54 PM


i need good children help permas jaya is very dangerous permas jaya malaysia planet60 07-3882323

Posted by: ponkin14 at May 14, 2006 12:46 AM


Throwing more technology at a non technology problem won't make an iota of difference.

It is not that the technology doesn't look impressive.

It is not that the thinking ability and innovative approach is un-valued

It is simply that the issue in Iraq is not about the technology, it is about different approaches to valuing the world. Until we realise that, more lives will be lost and substantial amounts of money will be spent achieving little. There is a big difference between activity and productivity. At the moment, there appears to be an awful lot of activity.

Posted by: MPB at February 22, 2006 03:04 AM


What a bullshit,
again if stuff being utilized at warzones proves to be inaccurate more lives ar at danger then there are allready...
And to compare 300 million dollars to support home, live and pennyless southerners (and maibe forgotten but fellowman !)receving badly distributed (and to to lately distibuted) aid with the recent 70 billion dollars scraped tohether to be wasted on Irak, wasted on an other 500 lost soldiers, as many or more dead and starved Iraquies and an other 5-10 years for Iraq to suffer internal instability . Sound like lack of moral jugdement,Just because the military approach doesn't work , doesn't mean more money must be spend on gadgets..
And indeed finding such explosives is still the grand tour de force.
Were they honestly talking about 30 feet?
thats the length of a carbon fishing rod??
They may as well attach a joltred-up stungun to it...

Posted by: Maarten at February 21, 2006 05:51 AM


look this is ou r new brokyray!!

Posted by: wox at February 20, 2006 02:51 AM


what aload of crap...

Posted by: haha at February 16, 2006 07:33 AM


We are the most technologicly advanced and richest
nation on the face of the planet,can spend 300 mil
on trailers for katrina victems (which aren't beingused by the way)but we can't get our war fightersthe tools,armour and protection they need,and areASKING for,and WILL use the help!

Get this stuff to the field and put it to use,make
changes to it as you go to improve and refine the
tech to make it even more usable.I cannot believe
we can't have this ied problem nipped already if
the solution is right there in our hands,ready to
go.

Posted by: katsesama at February 15, 2006 07:16 AM


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?

Posted by: 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. Marine Corps decides to bypass the bureaucracy.
By Mark Mazzetti
Times Staff Writer

February 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — A new high-tech vehicle that destroys roadside bombs has passed a series of U.S. 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.

Last April, Army Brig. Gen. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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. "That's where my frustration comes in."

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. Gen. 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 roadways of homemade bombs. The vehicle has a remote-control console that troops can use from a safe distance, directing it like a radio-controlled car.

A metal boom that extends from the vehicle's chassis emits high-powered electric pulses — military officials call it "man-made lightning" — that set off the detonators on the bombs. The JIN is a spinoff technology of a larger U.S. government effort to develop energy-based weapons that include lasers, electric shocks and microwaves.

Pentagon officials and defense experts agree there is no technological "silver bullet" for the IED problem in Iraq. Insurgents continue to build bigger, more powerful bombs, and have managed to carry out successful attacks against U.S. and Iraqi troops even as the military develops new ways to counter them.

Although nobody in the military believes that deploying JIN vehicles to Iraq will eliminate the roadside bomb threat, many consider it among the most promising technologies yet developed, and question what they believe is a slow deployment schedule set by Army leaders in charge of the IED task force.

"The Army isn't saying no to this. They are just saying yes very, very slowly, and it's a tragedy," said a former senior Pentagon official who was involved in the development of the JIN last year and who requested anonymity because he feared that revealing his identity might endanger the future of the program.

The task force has been credited with developing various strategies to combat the IED threat, such as changing military tactics and equipping troops with electronic jammers that prevent insurgents from detonating the makeshift bombs.

All this, top Pentagon officials say, has already reduced the threat of roadside bombs in Iraq.

"Between the increase in armor and the changes in tactics, techniques and procedures that we've employed, the number of attacks … that have been effective has gone down, and the number of casualties per effective attack has gone down," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in November.

But, partly as a result of continuing complaints from commanders in the field, a month later the Pentagon moved to expand the authority and the scope of the task force. Critics had argued that under Votel, a one-star general, the task force did not have enough influence to push other government agencies such as the CIA, FBI and Energy Department to commit personnel and resources to the effort.

Consequently, the Pentagon announced in December that retired four-star Army Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs would assume control of an expanded task force that might ultimately number more than 350 people. The Pentagon also plans to triple the organization's budget to approximately $3.5 billion per year.

The Joint IED Neutralizer first came to the attention of senior Pentagon leaders last spring, after Votel returned from a demonstration of an early version and wrote an e-mail message to his staff. In the message, he called the JIN a "highly innovative system" that should be tested and prepared for "rapid insertion into the theater."

Shortly afterward, on April 30, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz wrote a memo about the JIN that went to Pace, then the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with Gen. Richard A. Cody, the vice chief of staff of the Army, and to the Pentagon's top civilian official in charge of weapons acquisition.

Wolfowitz's memo said the JIN had the potential to "dramatically alter the balance of power on IEDs," and recommended that the Pentagon immediately invest $30 million in the system to ramp up production and begin testing in Iraq.

Yet to date, only about a dozen JIN units have been produced. Officials at the company that makes the vehicle, Tucson-based Ionatron Inc., say they can currently build 17 JIN vehicles per month, but with the Pentagon's approval could quickly increase production to about 50 per month.

The company, which is publicly traded, has other contracts with the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies to develop energy-based weapons.

At a cost of about $200,000 per unit, the JIN is far cheaper than most military vehicles, and is designed to be expendable. Although clad with armor to withstand bullets from an AK-47, the vehicle could be damaged or destroyed while detonating a large roadside bomb. However, it is designed to destroy bombs from a distance, a feature that should allow it to be used multiple times.

Officials on the IED task force said they were apprehensive about deploying new technology to Iraq before it had been thoroughly tested. Allyn, the task force deputy director, said that in the past the Pentagon had made the mistake of sending technology to combat zones too early.

"It puts the burden on people who have a mission to perform and puts them at risk," Allyn said.

Posted by: bob at February 13, 2006 12:00 PM


I always thought the main problem with IEDs was detection, not disarming..

Interesting none the less.

Weren't the SuperHornets fielded ahead of schedule too?

Posted by: Brad at February 12, 2006 10:39 PM


I'm sure they already thought of this but when the IED explodes, do they have to replace the entire unit? Does the IED destroy the machine when the IED detonates? I hope these things don't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to detonate a single IED.

And i'm sure they thought about the possibility that IED's can be made to XXXXXXXXXXX?

If they can bump the range of the lightning bolt to keep the equipment out of harm's way then maybe they can start using them. Else there will be alot of dead and blown up armored golf carts scattered all over Iraq.

Just my opinion. But I'm sure they already have thought of these things.

Posted by: jtw at February 12, 2006 04:36 PM


Good Afternoon Folks,

I'm not sure if the 90% claim is corrector or not but this is a device that deserves a test in Iraq and the Marines intend to do so.

A story in todays L.A. Times deals with this and the problems of DoD procurement.

It appears that in order to get something in the Pentagon pipe line fast is more important to buy a Congressman on the House Defense Appropriations Committee.

Saving troops lives doesn't matter as much as keepping Congress well greased.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 12, 2006 03:25 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.