The U.S. has taken the unprecedented -- and some would say questionable -- step of selling some of its most sophisticated counter-IED technology to the Iraqi government, equipping specialized police, military and interior ministry troops with electronic systems designed to detonate roadside bombs and jam triggering signals.
Officials from Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq announced April 20 that its foreign military sales office had sold the Iraqis 411 Lockheed Martin-built "Symphony" counter-IED systems. A few of the Symphony systems are already up and running on Iraqi government vehicles, the command said, with the rest due to be installed by the end of the summer.
"This system will afford the Iraqi security forces long-term, independent counter-IED protection and relieves coalition troops from this responsibility so the latter may perform other tasks," said Army Lt. Col. Will Flucker, the command's Symphony program manager, in an April 20 release. "This system is a critical part of security transition from the coalition forces to the government of Iraq and integral to developing [Iraqi security forces] into a long-term partner in the global war on terror."
But some might see handing over America's most sophisticated and top secret counter-IED technology to Iraqi ministries, whose loyalty to Baghdad is less than certain, as extremely risky. Electronic jammers like the Symphony have saved American lives in a war where the roadside bomb is the number-one killer, and the possibility that an Iraqi official could hand over the technology to an insurgent or unfriendly government is all too real.
"You have to assume that about the third one that we ship over there is going to go straight out the back door," said John Pike, director of the Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-area defense research group. "We have a fundamental dilemma here in trying to indigenize these security forces."
Due to its highly-classified technology, Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Ellen Mitchell refused to discuss Symphony's capabilities or the Iraqi sale. A 2007 Pentagon contract announcement called the Symphony a "programmable, radio-frequency IED defeat system that is vehicle mounted."
The Army's Flucker acknowledged the risk that the technology could wind up in the wrong hands, saying the $51 million deal had been inked only after "numerous technical and administrative delays."
"Most of the administrative hurdles are related to providing effective technology to the partner nation while ensuring such technology is not compromised and does not proliferate beyond Iraq's borders," Flucker wrote Military.com in an email response to questions.
The Iraqi system will incorporate anti-tamper technology along with a fill or operating code that periodically expires and must be renewed in order for the system to operate, and the use of "trusted agents" to handle, control and distribute the operating code, Flucker added.
And that accounts for part of the lengthy "administrative" delays that kept the Symphony -- which costs about $78,000 per system -- out of Iraqi hands for nearly two years.
"This requires a combination of technical and administrative controls that require testing and refinement before they can be implemented with a high degree of confidence," Flucker said.
Pike said that electronic jamming of IEDs is a problem of physics -- there are a limited number of frequencies used to trigger IEDs and the jammers attack all of them. So a Symphony winding up in the hands of the insurgents would have limited utility.
"Whatever waveform it is using to jam ... will by definition be disclosed to the enemy when you turn it on," Pike said, adding that measures to prevent tampering or unauthorized use seem to work.
"I think that they are secure at least to the extent that Iran can't do anything about it," he said.
The Symphony systems will be doled out to Iraqi special forces, ministry of defense officials and interior ministry troops -- including Iraqi army, police, national police and explosive ordnance disposal units. The deal includes a nine-month support contract from Lockheed Martin to "ensure the units function properly and the Iraqis can properly utilize the systems to their full advantage," officials said.
Aside from protecting Iraqi officials, troops and police from roadside bomb ambushes, Flucker hopes the deal will help get more U.S. troops off the road by freeing them up from the dangerous and tedious duties of convoy escort.
"Affording counter-IED protection to the [Iraqi security forces] has been a partnership endeavor from the outset," Flucker added. "Given the theater IED threat, the [government of Iraq] and the coalition have wanted to make this happen for some time now."
-- Christian
Blowin' Your Mind
First of all, let me just say up front: Since my recent return from Iraq, I have officially become a fan of the MRAP.
O.K., I said it. You've read plenty of skeptical stories here at DT on the usefulness of the MRAP and the prudence of a "crash" program to buy gobs of them for Iraq. I stand by my principle criticism. But after having spent some time in MRAPs -- particularly the RG-33 6x version -- I have to admit I feel pretty safe riding in them.
I'll lay out more of my case in subsequent posts, but suffice it to say in the Humvee I have to get my 6'2" frame in and out of one like a clown car -- folding one leg in and reaching out to fold the next one into the small foot wells. There's no place to stow a bag and tri-pod or other reporting gear in a Humvee.
Not so the MRAP. Cushy seats, room for multiple coolers, backpacks full of snivel gear and snacks and radios, DVD players and iPod speakers.
I'll take an MRAP over a Humvee any day.
Now to the point...
One of the cool pieces of gear I noticed when I was tromping around with some EOD folks near Tikrit is this crazy snow blower looking gizmo attached to several of the unit's MRAPs. The unit commander tells me they're called "Blow Torch" and what the guys tell me is that they shoot out a blistering stream of air to uncover IEDs, command wire and other detonators attached to a roadside bomb without having to tinker with it by hand or with a robot.
The system was recognized in August 2007 as one of the Army's "greatest inventions" and so far it's been deployed to principally Army units in Iraq for about two years.
-- Christian
Helmet Sensors Measure Blast Impact
The Army is reporting on a new helmet sensor that might lead to better helmets in the future. Here's a bit:
The sensors gather data on impacts ranging from a dropped or kicked helmet to a vehicle crash to a nearby weapon firing or explosion, Maj. Schaffer explained. They measure two specific actions: the energy wave generated by the "event," and the "acceleration" or jolt that follows.
In the short term, data collected through the sensors is expected to help the Army improve the helmets and other protective equipment it provides its soldiers, Maj. Schaffer said.
A longer-term application -- one Maj. Schaffer emphasized the medical community isn't yet ready for -- is to use impact data to help diagnose traumatic brain injuries.
"With the number of IEDs that we're seeing in Iraq and the traumatic brain injury that's coming out of it, obviously somewhere down the line we are looking at correlating the blast and the injury," he said. "But in the near term, we are looking at developing a more protective piece of equipment. The advanced combat helmet we have out there is the best in the world, but we are always looking at ways to make our products better, and this is a great way to start."
Target munitions (IEDs, UXO) are destroyed by heating, resulting in a low-yield detonation. In other words, instead of exploding with their intended full force, the target munition "pops" or "fizzles" out, rendering it safe.
The optical system focuses the 1 kW laser into a "few cm diameter" spot at the target range. Within that spot, the average intensity is over 200 W/cm2. That intensity is approximately 20 times the average thermal output of a standard burner element on an electric stovetop. Over seconds or minutes of illumination time, that effect is sufficient to provide the thermal load necessary to detonate the targets used in the demonstration.
Late last month, the folks at Boeing test fired a Humvee-mounted laser that can be used to destroy IEDs and unexploded ordnance.
Boeing says the 1-kilowatt solid state laser took out five targets during a test shoot at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. The laser was mated to an Avenger air defense vehicle, which usually fires Stinger anti-aircraft missile at low flying aircraft.
The company said the Laser Avenger also zapped two stationary UAVs sitting on the ground – a long way from proving the system can shoot down airborne drones, but still enough for Boeing to claim the laser could be used for UAVs on the move.
Whether it can blow up flying robots is superfluous at this point. Typical IED disposal in Iraq and Afghanistan is a very high risk proposition, requiring a technician to place charges on the bomb, use a robot to do it or a mechanical arm. I know from experience that one insurgent technique is to allow the EOD personnel to deploy to Buffalo arm on an IED, then detonate it, blowing the complex and vulnerable hydraulic arm off and rendering the vehicle useless.
Boeing wouldn’t say how far away the laser works, but even if it’s a little further than the range of a robot or a Buffalo arm, it could be a better solution than today’s options.
Boeing release follows:
The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has successfully demonstrated that its Avenger-mounted laser system can neutralize the kinds of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and unexploded ordnance (UXO) that threaten U.S. troops deployed in war zones.
During laser firings Sept. 26-27 at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala., the Laser Avenger engaged and destroyed five targets representing IED and UXO threats. Laser Avenger, equipped with a 1-kilowatt solid-state laser, proved its effectiveness at ranges that allowed the system to be operated at safe distances from the target. During the test, the system also took a step toward demonstrating a counter-unmanned aerial vehicle capability by destroying two small unmanned aerial vehicles that were stationary on the ground.
Laser Avenger is a Boeing-funded initiative to show that directed energy weapons are relevant to today's battlefield and are ready to be fielded.
Boeing developed the system in only eight months, underscoring the company's ability to rapidly respond to warfighters' needs.
Laser Avenger also is the latest in a series of Boeing upgrades to expand the Avenger air defense system into an Agile Multi-Role Weapon System (AMWS) with ground-to-ground as well as ground-to-air capability.
The laser was added while retaining Avenger's ability to carry other weapons, including missiles and a machine gun. By building upon the Avenger, of which there are over 600 fielded worldwide, Laser Avenger will take advantage of an existing global logistics network, making it highly supportable.
"Boeing's investment strategy is to move some of its new directed energy weapon systems into field demonstrations, and Laser Avenger is the first one we're rolling out," said Gary Fitzmire, vice president and program director of Boeing Directed Energy Systems. "Laser Avenger provides the speed-of-light and ultra-precision capability that the warfighter needs today to safely neutralize improvised explosive devices and unexploded ordnance."
"Laser Avenger marries the best of Boeing -- our proven Avenger system with the great capabilities of Boeing's directed energy business unit,"
said Debra Rub-Zenko, vice president of Boeing Integrated Missile Defense. "Adding a laser to the Avenger arsenal expands the capability of this flexible system to meet battlefield requirements today and tomorrow."
The laser segment of Laser Avenger will have uses beyond the counter-IED, counter-UXO mission. For instance, it could be upgraded to have a shoot-on-the-move capability and to destroy other kinds of targets, including low-flying unmanned aerial vehicles.
The general in charge of operations for coalition forces in northern Iraq had an interesting technical request during an interview with fellow bloggers this morning (Sept. 24). He had a lot of other things to say, of course, but I thought DT readers would be particularly interested in this little tidbit.
When asked what kind of gear items he needed that he didn’t already have, Brig. Gen. Mike Bednarek applauded the money and effort put into devising counter IED technology and getting urgent needs out to the field, but had one simple request.
I’ll paraphrase a bit here:
“If I could have one thing that could help me right now, it would be some sort of low-power laser cutter that we could mount to a Humvee and as we drive along, it would cut command detonation wires along our route.”
This perked my interest and I’d like to see if any DT readers have some input here. This idea certainly makes sense, but I wonder if there’s anything out there already to meet Bednarek’s demands, or whether this problem has already been considered and deemed unworkable.
I’ve seen that weird IR triggering device that has been recently retrofitted to Humvees – the one that looks like a big, flat black square on a pole extending from the front bumper – which is used to detonate EFP roadside bombs. But I don’t know if there’s something out there like the laser cutter Bednarek needs.
Let us know if any of you have heard anything about something like this. I’d like to be able to put someone in touch with the general if there is – maybe we here at DT can do a little more than debate amongst ourselves. Maybe we can help someone save a few lives in the process…
It’s dangerous work searching vehicles at a TCP, or traffic control point, in Iraq. Any one of those pickups, taxi cabs or dump trucks passing through could hide thousands of pounds of explosives and a sweat-soaked suicide bomber itching for a run at some heavenly virgins.
Forcing the occupants to exit the vehicle, searching under every seat and in every nook and cranny can be extremely hazardous to your health, to say the least. But one tool the troops are using in the sandbox is helping keep the danger at bay in busy checkpoints.
Backscatter x-ray machines have proven vital in the battle against VBIDs. But the panel truck-sized vehicles are large, conspicuous, meaty targets for insurgent RPGs. So American Science and Engineering, Inc. passed along a release to Defense Tech that could offer a much more elegant solution to the backscatter capability needed in austere environments abroad.
AS&E writes:
American Science and Engineering's ZBV Military Trailer(TM) is a rugged X-ray screening system built onto a standard military trailer. With one-sided, Backscatter imaging, security officials can use ZBV Mil Trailer for screening vehicles, containers, and other cargo for terrorist threats and contraband — simply by towing the trailer past the subjects, or by remaining stationary while vehicles drive past the trailer. The ZBV Mil Trailer employs AS&E's patented Z® Backscatter(TM) technology, which produces photo-like images of the contents of a container or vehicle, highlighting organic materials such as explosives. Development of the ZBV Military Trailer was supported by a November 2006 R&D contract for $2.2 Million to deliver a ruggedized ZBV for the U.S. Government. The ZBV Mil Trailer is ideal for screening vehicles for car and truck bombs.
ZBV Mil Trailer also includes Forwardscatter technology to complement Z Backscatter imaging. Forwardscatter presents a second scatter perspective that displays dense objects in cargo, such as the shielding found around nuclear WMD. With ZBV Mil Trailer in stationary scan mode, Forwardscatter detectors are positioned opposite the X-ray source in the trailer. The Forwardscatter image is displayed simultaneously with the Z Backscatter image, providing the operator with more information on the contents of a scanned vehicle.
I know from my experience in Ramadi that these trucks are a lifesaver. But they’re expensive, obtrusive and only optimized for high flow areas...there was only one of them for the entire capital city of al Anbar. With this sleeker solution, troops might be able to position this capability at many more checkpoints, leaving insurgent bombers few avenues to deliver their vehicle borne devastation.
Well it looks like the first spasm of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle orders has been launched, with the Pentagon inking a – get this - $481 million contract for 1,000 vehicles this week.
That’s a half a billion dollars for 300 of the 15-ton Cougar Cat-1 (MRAP-MRUV) vehicles and 700 of the 16-ton Cat-2 (MRAP-JEERV) behemoths - all going to Force Protection Industries, Inc.
Excuse me for being the skunk at the picnic, but I’m skeptical of the value of these purchases.
The MRAP is not a tactical vehicle. It is a specialized armored truck designed primarily for protecting EOD units and their gear from explosions while diffusing bombs or mines. The Marine Corps’ top gear buyer, Brig. Gen. Mike Brogan, admitted last month the MRAP was viewed by the Corps as a “boutique vehicle” for certain specialties. They asked for a limited quantity of these vehicles in the 2008 budget and 2007 wartime funding request based on that view.
Then what happened? You guessed it, Congress stepped in. After browbeating every service and DoD official they could over the meager number of MRAPs in the budget, Army and Marine officials snapped to and revamped their request to satisfy lawmakers’ new infatuation.
Remember again: the MRAPs are not tactical vehicles. Of course, neither is a Humvee (it was designed as a logistics vehicle), but it’s a lot easier to use as a tactical vehicle with current modifications than the MRAP in an urban counterinsurgency. The giant, heavy MRAP vehicle is ill-suited to the urban fight. You might as well drive around the city in a Bradley fighting vehicle.
I know I’ll probably get a lot of crap for this, but I think the services recognize that the MRAP isn't what they need but they’re responding to the congressional love affair with the vehicle because they have to. The push is forcing the services to buy MRAPs from nine different manufacturers, and though military officials insist they’re all similar mechanically, you know there are going to be widgets and nick-knacks that are different, requiring their own logistics chain.
And what will the Army and Marine Corps do with these vehicles after U.S. involvement in Iraq is drawn down, which no matter how you look at it is inevitable soon? The services are spending millions on the development of a new version of the Humvee that answers a lot of the shortfalls found in the 1980s-era vehicle, including a blast-deflecting underbody and gas-hybrid engines. But with thousands of MRAP vehicles sitting in motor pools around the country, it may be difficult to justify spending money on an improved Humvee.
My last problem with the MRAP is that it’s too big and intimidating. Fielding a vehicle that troops are supposed to travel in every time they go outside the wire that looks like it will crush you if you even look at it doesn’t seem to me to be a good way to win hearts and minds, and makes it difficult to interact with a population you’re trying to win over. At least in a Humvee you’re a ground level and can quickly jump out to pass a few soccer balls to the kids. Not so in the Cougar, which is so far off the ground and has such thick windows, it’s as if there’s no human in the thing at all.
What would Gen. Petraeus say if he were asked his honest opinion of the MRAP infatuation? Does it serve his counterinsurgency plan at all?
So my main man Rob Curtis is back in the sandbox for a five-week trip with a cub Air Force Times reporter covering Air Force security operations and training missions there.
Rob and I worked for a couple years on a documentary project and have been through some pretty heavy times together.
I wanted to direct you to some photos he shot of the business end of an explosively formed penetrator roadside bomb that struck a vehicle belonging to the unit he’s embedded with. We’ve both seen the effects of an IED, but I’ve never seen anything like this.
American officials are unanimous in their belief that this weapon comes from Iran. If so, I don’t understand how this doesn’t prompt more consternation from the public and politicians on both sides of the aisle – and of the Iraq war debate.
That may or may not be true. But the thought that one of my bros was just one patrol away from being maimed or killed by a weapon designed and/or built in Iran to maim and kill Americans is pretty upsetting…
It’s also helpful to note this exchange between CNN’s Barbara Starr and Multinational Corps-Iraq commander, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno on Friday…
Q General Odierno, Barbara Starr from CNN. You spoke about Iran again. Are you able yet to tell us that there is direct evidence that it is the Iranian government or the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Al-Qods that is directly ordering this interference in Iraq? Are you learning anything from the Al-Qods member -- people you still have in custody? Are you able to carry your evidence any further than just they're out there and they’re causing interference?
GEN. ODIERNO: I would just say right now -- I'm only willing to say that it's clear that the Qods Force is involved in what's going on here by supplying training, money and weapons. We're still working other aspects of it, but I'm not willing to comment on anything along those lines.
I would say, though, it is clear that they continue to interfere, the Qods Force continues to attempt to interfere in Iraqi -- in operations inside of Iraq. We continue to intercept weapons. We know there's money that's flowing in from Iran to certain insurgent groups in Iraq, and we will continue to work through this.
And in fact we're working now to determine whether they are in fact not only providing support to Shi'a groups but also Sunni insurgent groups. We don't have any specific proof of that yet, but there's been some indications that that could in fact be the case.
Q Very briefly, why would the Iranians be supporting Sunni groups?
GEN. ODIERNO: I think it's mainly because they want to continue to create chaos in Iraq. They do not want this government potentially to succeed. But additionally, I think they want to try to tie down coalition forces here. And it's clear that they are attempting to affect what's going on inside of Iraq on a daily basis, and we have to be very aware of that, and we will continue to be aware of that and work it.
Makes you think about the timeless idiom: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
My old friend Bryan Bender had an interesting story today in the Boston Globe on a new initiative within the Pentagon to oversee the inner workings of the Joint IED Defeat Organization.
It looks as if the Pentagon wants to get its arms around the incredible number of projects JIEDDO is working on and to better account for the billions of dollars being spent each year on countermeasures and anti-IED tactics.
The IED Task Force will be co-chaired by retired Army Lt. Gen. Paul Funk, whom Bender reports is a noted Iraq war critic. Funk commanded the 3rd Armored Division during the Gulf War and has been a semi-frequent guest on news talk shows criticizing the administration’s rush to war.
Coming on the heels of reports that the White House is having a hard time finding someone to become its War Czar, it seems the administration is running out of reliable allies even to honcho top military programs.
We’ll see if the Task Force can help the military come to grips with the deadly counter-IED problem.
I’m checking on the accuracy of the report, but I thought it would be worth giving this story from “Debka file” a closer look.
I usually take Debka’s entries with a grain of salt, but I gotta tell you, sometimes they’re eerily on the mark. Rumor has it, the site is a public voice for the Israeli intelligence services, dropping hints to real or imagined threats in hopes of smoking out reality. On this one, I’m only too happy to oblige.
Debka’s latest post hints that al Qaeda is starting to develop its own electronic countermeasures to U.S. anti-IED technology. As has been reported on these pages quite frequently, the U.S. relies heavily on electronic means to detect and defeat roadside bombs. It seems that AQ is getting in on the act – possibly with Iranian help.
Soon after [electronic jammers] were fitted on US military vehicles and went into successful use, al Qaeda came up with a device capable of jamming and disarming both US electronic measures by radio signals. The Islamist terrorists thus escalated their challenge to the US military by introducing electronic warfare.
Their success has boosted the US and British death toll in Iraq. Of the 50 US and UK soldiers who died in Iraq in the first 9 days of April, 30 were killed by IEDs. Al Qaeda’s mystery device is believed by military experts to account for the soaring rate of effective roadside bomb hits on American vehicles, even those fitted with the new counter-measures...
...al Qaeda is suspected of acquiring its advanced electronic warfare technology from Iran, which also supplies the IEDs to Iraq’s Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. Tehran owns an interest in the successful performance of its weaponry on Iraq’s battlefields and, most of all, in proving its technology is superior to American systems.
The notion doesn’t seem too far fetched. When it comes down to it, a lot of the back and forth on IEDs is a low-tech game: washing machine timers, radio phone transmitters, garage door openers, cell phones. Maybe it’s not so hard to counter American counter-measures after all?
DefenseLink has posted a Navy contract awarded to Remotec, Inc., Clinton, Tenn., for $45,000,000. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for robotic systems, accessories, spare parts, depot level repair support, and operator and technician training.
("Indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity"? And you make a cool $45 mil? Where do you sign up for that kind of work? No wonder the defense budget is so gynormous.)
Meanwhile over at National Defense, Stew Magnuson has a nice capture of the Navy's next gen bomb disposal robots.
Check it out.
And speaking of robots, here's a classic from a couple of years ago. (Not sure who "Gruntie the Knucklehead" is at the end):
The pictures released last week of Iraqi high-tech explosives surprised me. These special 'superbombs' that have caused so many US casualties -- they look like they had been assembled in someone's garage.
These bombs belong to a class known as EFP --'Explosively Formed Projectile' or 'Explosively Formed Penetrator,' depending on who you're talking to. They compress a metal liner into a slug and fire it at the target some distance away.
The picture shows what a real EFP munition looks like. This is M2 Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition (SLAM). It's small enough to put in your pocket and weighs a couple of pounds.
This version has been used by US Special Forces for the last 15 years or so. As GlobalSecurity.org describes it, SLAM is versatile, too:
It will be used to support hit-and-run, ambush, and harassing, and urban warface missions. SLAM will also be employed by Light Combat Engineers and Rangers where missions warrant the use of such a device....SLAM is lightweight, lethal, easily emplaced, and can be carried in the quantity necessary to neutralize a broad range of targets.
Different modes allow SLAM to be triggered by the heat or magnetic signature of a passing vehicle or by a timer -- or it can be set off by a human operator. It can be emplaced in seconds and spits out a lethal slug which can punch through 40mm of steel armor at a range of 25 feet. You can leave it on the ground covered in dirt to attack a vehicle's belly, or conceal it beside a road for side attack.
No doubt the Russians and Chinese have their own versions of SLAM, and these have probably been copied too. So you might expect a rougher, cheaper copy to appear in Iraq if it was supplied from the outside.
But as has been observed here, anyone can make crude and simple EFP munitions in a basic workshop. All you need is a lump of plastic explosive and a piece of copper. Shape the copper into a saucer, put the explosive under it, and you're there. Obviously this will be a lot less efficient, accurate and reliable than something like SLAM (optimal design of the the metal 'lens' is an art requiring a lot of computer power), but you can compensate by making it ten times bigger if you need to.
Maybe the insurgents should be given some credit for being able to build their own gear, or maybe there's more intelligence we don't know. But if EFP mines were being supplied by an outside source, you might expect to see somethng a lot slicker.
UPDATE 11:37: Speaking of surprises, Centcom commander Adm. Fox Fallon doesn't agree that the Iranian government has been supplying Iraq's EFPs. He's notalone. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace, on the other hand, seemed to back away from his previous, doubting statements -- at least a little. More here.
UPDATE 01:20: The bombs aren't the only issue, of course. According to the Telegraph, Iranian-supplied sniper rifles are also making their way into Iraq.
UPDATE 15/02/07: Steyr, the Austrian makers of those .50 cal sniper rifles say there's no proof they came from Iran - and that they might not even be Steyr-made rifles at all.
The debate these days is all about whether or not Tehran is supplying Iraq's armor-piercing bombs. But the roots of these explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, goes all the way back to Hitler-era Germany, the Yorkshire Ranter notes. Military historian Larry Grupp explains.
Dr. Hubert Schardin was definitely not a Nazi. Nevertheless, he stood stiffly at attention in full Luftwaffe dress uniform at Gestapo headquarters in Budapest, Hungary. It was the spring of 1944 and Schardin, a brilliant German explosives physicist, needed assistance. Under direct orders from Adolf Hitler to develop new superweapons, he needed the Gestapo's help to locate a famous but reclusive Hungarian colonel named Misznay who could provide detailed information regarding the complex physics involved in shaped charge explosives.
Colonel Misznay was, by all historical indicators, so elusive that today we are even uncertain what his real first name was. In all probability, Misznay was either a double or perhaps even a triple agent. After World War II, he dropped out of sight in the Eastern Bloc. Yet his last name lives on as a result of a special explosive phenomenon he identified, called the Misznay-Schardin effect -- a phenomenon that recognizes that fragments can be thrown from the face of an explosive charge in a predictable pattern, much like a projectile from a rifle barrel.
It's that effect which forms the heart of the EFP's deadly power. ThesePentagondocuments. , obtained by ABC News, give the best public run-down I've seen so far on how lethal these bombs have been.
(Big ups: AT)
Deadly Bombs' Long, Winding Trail
The U.S. government's claim yesterday, that the Iranians are supplying weapons to Iraqi militants, was met with a huge amount of skepticism -- and with good reason, given the Administration's lousy intel-interpreting track record, and the strange conditions of Sunday's presentation. (More on that, in a second.) But, for what it's worth, Defense Tech has been hearing about these weapons -- especially the "explosively-formed projectiles," or EFPs -- for the last eighteen months. Many of the government's assertions track, at least loosely, to what we've heard.
Soldiers in Iraq were already encountering EFPs -- and the closely-related "shaped-charges" -- back in the summer of '05, when I visited the country.
In the garden, there's a seemingly innocuous copper cylinder, concave on one end, about the size of a gallon of paint. It's called an explosively formed projectile, or EFP, and when it detonates, the concave end blows outward and melts into a bullet-shaped fragment that slices through armor and flesh. "Ten days ago, one of these sons-of-bitches took out an arm of a Humvee driver and both his legs," says Captain Greg Hirschey, the 717th's commander. "I get shivers up my spine every time I see one."
Back then, it was commonly assumed that the EFP-makers were getting some over-the-border help. After all, Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas have been using the weapons against Israeli tanks for some time.
A few months later, David Axe caught word of a particularly nasty EFP in Anbar province: infrared "tripwire-activated IEDs disguised as rocks and apparently employing shaped-charge warheads." That sounds almost exactly like the "Fully Operational, Camouflaged Passive Infrared EFP" that the government, in its Iran presentation, said was found in the Basra area, last May.
Still, does that mean there's a direct, tight connection between the Iranian government and the Iraqi bombers? Terrorists -- especially terrorist bomb-makers -- share best practices, from Colombia to Spain to Lebanon to Iraq. So it's not surprising to see one group's methods mimicked somewhere else. Take those infrared tripwires: they were first used by the Irish Republican Army. And I don't think we're about to send a carrier group to the Celtic Sea.
What's more, when Iranian EFPs were first spotted in Iraq, the bombs were in the hands of Sunni insurgents. At the time, that "seem[ed] to suggest a new and unusual area of cooperation between Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis to drive American forces out - a possibility that the commanders said they could make little sense of, given the increasing violence between the sects in Iraq." But now, this looks like terror-makers sharing tricks of the trade, rather some grand, ecumenical alliance.
Or, as Kevin Drum notes, Iran could just be trying to stoke chaos on all sides. "If I were in charge of Iran, it's probably what I'd be doing," he writes. And there's more than just the EFPs to tie Tehran to the conflict in Iraq. Iranian TNT and newly-minted mortars were also trotted out in the American presentation. "The evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq," McClatchy notes, "is far more compelling than much of the administration's pre-war intelligence about Iraq."
That said, if the case was ironclad, the administration wouldn't be resorting to silly maneuvers like these when it made its case for Iran's involvement:
The officials said they would speak only on the condition of anonymity, so the explosives expert and the analyst, who would normally not speak to the news media, could provide information directly. The analyst's exact title and full name were not revealed to reporters. The officials released a PowerPoint presentation including photographs of the weaponry, but did not allow media representatives to record, photograph or videotape the briefing or the materials on display.
Too much is riding on this evidence for such chicanery. Make the case cleanly, guys. Or don't make it at all.
UPDATE 5:11 PM: As benjoya notes in the comments to a previous post, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace doesn't agree with the administration's assessment.
UPDATE 5:36 PM: Be sure to read Newsweek'scover story, too. But be ready to wince.
Worst. Bomb Squad. Ever.
It takes most people more than a year to graduate from the the U.S. military's explosive ordnance disposal school. With good reason: bombs are beyond dangerous, and defusing them is a whole lot more complicated than "pulling the red wire."
Which is why I cringe every time I hear about some newbie trying to play bomb squad hero. This NPR story, of a beyond-incompetent Iraqi EOD team, has to be the most cringe-worthy case I've heard yet. Because the only thing dumber than randomly shooting at a bomb is randomly kicking it and tossing it around.
Someone, stop these fools, before they get themselves killed.
...an Iraqi explosives team are on the case.
The Iraqi police start shooting at the potential bomb, hoping to set it off. But to no avail. The convoy continues to sit and wait. An hour passes. As Sgt. Lord watches, the Iraqi police move closer to the suspected bomb.
In this case, the first IED turns out to be a fake. To the surprise of the American soldiers, this emboldens the Iraqi police who are now focusing on the second suspected bomb.
"Oh, he kicked it," says an American soldier watching.
"The second one must have been safe," Lord says, "because they went over to it, kicked it over, and then threw it across the road. Ay yi yi."
An hour and a half after first stopping, the convoy moves on. (emphasis mine)
Navy's Deadly New Darts
This is a new piece of Navy hardware: a modified satellite-guided bomb, releasing thousands of darts, each carrying a payload of a powerful chemical called DETA. It sounds fearsome, but it's a new countermine technology for taking out mines in the surf zone which I describe in New Scientisthere.
One of the interesting features is the .50-caliber Venom dart, which hits at relatively low velocity, but can still go through ten to twelve feet of water or two feet of stand and retain its effectiveness. The secret is in the blunt nose: it’s another one of those cavitating designs, a relative of the Russian Shkval and its Iranian cousin that caused so much stir last year. These form a bubble around themselves to reduce water friction, and as a result the Venom dart goes way deeper than a conventional design.
Perhaps more significant is how effective it is against sand – making it a kind of miniature version of Lockheed’s bunker-busting Cavity Penetrator I described in 2005. However, the big difference is that sand can act as a fluid, whereas hard rock – which the Lockheed design is supposed to glide through at high speed - is another matter. My suspicion is that this approach will not work well in solids, and we will see if Lockheed can make good on their claims of increasing penetration thriough rock by a facot of five or more.
The Office of Naval Research design releases the cloud of darts from a thousand feet or so, but they all impact in an area just sixty feet across. That in itself is an indication of the level of precision guidance which is now possible with this technique – one which might be adapated for a other munitions attacking small targets without collateral damage.
The other interesting thing about the Venom dart is this idea of neutralizing ordnance by chemicals means. Of course it’s been tried before, but in this case there seems to be a genuinely effective means of delivering it from a safe stand-off distance. It would not take too much brilliance to design a hand-held launcher for the darts, a useful option for quickly and reliably dealing with mines and IEDs without having to get close to them.
The Navy command responsible for testing bomb-disposal tactics and equipment for the entire U.S. military recently has hosted its first annual "Explosive Ordnance Disposal Top Tech Challenge," a three-day slate of competitions for Navy bomb squads, as I report over at Military.com:
EOD Training and Evaluation Unit Two, part of Naval Expeditionary Combat Command headquartered at this facility near Virginia Beach in southern Virginia, in November welcomed five two-man teams from Navy bases around the world, according to the unit's skipper, Commander Tom Smith, 42.
"It's an absolute uber-challenge," Smith says of the competition, going on to describe grueling events including booby-trap defusing, rappelling, land navigation and a "limpet mine" challenge where bomb technicians must dive into a "cold lake on a cold morning" to find and disable a replica of the kinds of mines terrorists might attach to the bottom of a ship.
"We threw the kitchen sink at them," Smith laughs.
This year, an EOD team from Sigonella, Italy took top honors. Calling the competition a success, Smith adds that his unit is already planning for next years. He says the 2007 Challenge will involve as many as a dozen teams.
P.S. -- Slate has a sweet roundup of Iraq war comics that includes my book WAR FIX as well as cool entries from Brian Wood (DMZ) and Joe Sacco (WAR JUNKIE). Check it out.
Military deaths from roadside bombs have hit an all-time high in recent months: In October, 53 US troops died from improvised explosive devices, while in November, 49 troop deaths were blamed on so-called IEDs -- the second and third highest monthly tolls of the war, official statistics and casualty reports show...
The Joint IED Defeat Organization, which had been hailed as the "Manhattan Project" of the roadside bomb problem, "has been a disaster," said Ed O'Connell, a counter-insurgency specialist at the government-funded Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., who has advised US commanders in Iraq.
For its part, the organization claims some progress. They say that the percentage of bombs that are disarmed or detonated before they can kill or maim has remained "stable and consistent" over the past 18 months, and they say there are now fewer casualties per IED attack...
But officials acknowledged that the number of roadside bombings has "risen dramatically over the last two years," though they would not provide statistics.
That increase has confounded the military and raised questions about whether gathering intelligence on the bombers should be the office's top priority... [T]he IED office told the Globe that it spends 63 percent of its budget on ways to "defeat the device," while only 30 percent goes to attacking "the network" that creates and plants the bombs. The rest of its budget is spent on new training methods for US troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But military specialists say that the Pentagon needs to pay more attention to dissecting the "kill chain" -- the source of the bomb components, who made the bomb, and who planted it.
"We can't even detect their explosives," said Loren Thompson , a military specialist at the Lexington Institution, an Arlington, Va., think tank that supports strong military preparedness. "We don't have the resources to police or survey every road. The IED problem is a case study of how military transformation has failed.
"It sounds like a threat where good intelligence and good surveillance would make a big difference," [h]e said. "But we don't seem to be able to develop those things."
UPDATE 4:40 PM: This seems like a smart, and long-overdue, move.
Recon Planes vs. I.E.D.s
Since the Iraq insurgency began, the U.S. Air Force has been looking for ways to use its planes to fight roadside bombs. Electronic warriors like the EC-130H Compass Calljam frequencies used to set off explosives. Drones patrol highways, looking for new, suspicious mounds along the road. Sometimes they even take out the bomb-planters.
Inside Defense reveals another Air Force tactic: Using ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft "to help coalition units round up insurgent cells believed to manufacture lethal improvised explosive devices."
Military officials -- working backward using surveillance video -- were able to successfully trace IED placers’ moves using targeting pods and ISR aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), Lt. Col. Clint Hinote said during a Nov. 21 telephone interview...
[T]he Air Force has used its surveillance assets to find insurgent IED makers, as opposed to solely working to find or disarm the deadly devices, Hinote said...
“You can have a security camera in the sky,” he said. “We actually have aircraft that have that capability of just taking shots of what’s going on.”
After IEDs detonate in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, Air Force ISR officials begin marking tapes of radar sweeps in an attempt to pinpoint the explosion, he said. They then essentially rewind the tapes, trying to discover any movements in the specific area prior to the blast.
“Maybe you can find the car that was involved and backtrack it to a certain house,” Hinote said. “We’ve got several ISR assets that right now are working on this backtracking plan.
“That’s actually led to a couple of good successes where we’ve rounded up some IED cells,” he added.
The ultimate goal is to track the IED maker to a bomb-making equipment storage location -- “and then even further back,” Hinote said.
Better Bomb-Sniffers?
Terrorists and insurgents still love things that go boom. So it's no surprise that the Defense Department is looking for smarter, more accurate ways to detect explosives. Here are a few research contracts Darpa, the Pentagon's bleeding-edge science agency, recently handed out, to build better bomb-sniffers:
EIC LABORATORIES, INC.
111 Downey Street
Norwood, MA 02062
Phone: (781) 769-9450
PI: Jane Bertone
Topic#: DARPA 06-022
Title: Explosives Detection in Residential Building Ventilation Systems
Abstract: One approach to locating illicit bomb factories in Iraq and Afghanistan is analytical monitoring within the ventilation systems of suspect residential buildings. We are proposing a multiple sensor analyzer that sequentially interrogates individual vents or ducts in such buildings and produces fingerprints characteristic of present target substances. The basic premise of this proposal is to locate sensor probes in key ducts or vents and connect them with fiber cabling to a spectral analyzer located in the attic or roof of the building. This setup would monitor a number of different locations within the building with emission of a wireless alarm report to a regional Tactical Operations Center from all online sensors every 10 to 15 minutes. We will achieve reproducible and selective detection of explosives using novel self-assembled structures that create an inherently uniform pattern, leading to rapid, reproducible manufacturing. The specific instrument we propose to analyze the sensors is a field portable spectrograph, with accompanying fiber optic probes, coupled to an accessory containing the sensing elements. Phase I work will focus on the demonstration of reproducible detection of airborne explosives using the sensors in the presence of potentially confusing interfering substances. The Phase II program will focus on quantifying the extent of fouling of the sensors due to long-term exposure to building air, developing a fieldable self-contained and powered instrument including multiplexed probes and wireless communication, and testing the sensors in mock ventilation systems.
LYNNTECH, INC.
7607 Eastmark Drive, Suite 102
College Station, TX 77840
Phone: (979) 693-0017
PI: Anjal Sharma
Topic#: DARPA 06-022
Title: Inexpensive TSP Based Reagentless Explosive Detector
Abstract: It has become imperative to counter the escalating threat of improvised explosive device attacks on our armed forces personnel deployed in foreign locations by seeking out and neutralizing local terrorist operated bomb making factories. Such factories are typically located in apartment buildings or other large dwellings, where the level of out-gassed explosive marker vapors is so small and buried within numerous confusers such as common chemicals that current detectors cannot be utilized to aid in their location. Therefore, Lynntech proposes to address this critical DOD need by fabricating three novel TSP based colorimetric sensor elements each selective for DNT, TNB and picrate, and incorporating these into an automated bench scale detector to demonstrate our capability to reagentlessly detect and quantify trace vapor phase explosives markers in the presence of common confusers such as household chemicals and matches. During Phase II, we will fabricate additional selective TSP sensor elements for other molecular explosives markers encompassing groups A through D and integrate these into a prototype compact inexpensive explosives detection device which may be placed in the HVAC system of apartment buildings. The device will be tested for reliable operation with low false positives, multiplex-ability and wireless control during Phase II.
MICROSTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
604 West Evergreen
Vancouver, WA 98660
Phone: (360) 694-3704
PI: Joseph Birmingham
Topic#: DARPA 06-022
Title: Low Cost Distributed Explosive Detection Device
Abstract: Automated vapor sampling detectors could potentially provide a detection capability for high vapor pressure explosives such as nitroglycerine (NG). However, for materials such as HMX and RDX, the equilibrium vapor pressures are at least four orders of magnitude lower than conventional trinitro-toluene (TNT) explosives, making detection based on sampling of airborne vapor difficult for all of the explosives without concentration. MicroStructure Technologies (MicroST) has undertaken a mission to develop small, compact, microstructured array detectors for explosive vapors (both nitrogen and peroxide-based materials). The upstream micropillars on the microstructured array have a high surface area and the vapors are adsorbed. The laser energy is coupled by fiber optic into the microarray to desorb a concentrated pulse of concentrated explosive vapor. A Microstructured Array Sampler (MAS) with an inorganic polymer coating as a sensing element to detect the concentrated vapors. The use of the inorganic polymers for explosive detection on an air-sampling microarray for confirmation is innovative. The key innovation of the proposed approach is to use a chip-based laser to selectively desorb a concentrated energetic sample onto sensing polymers coated onto a microarray. Lastly, the alarm signal from the microarray is sent wirelessly to reveal the type of explosive detected.
Terrorists Planned Fuel-Air Attack
A while back –- March ‘04 -- I noted the risk from terrorists using thermobaric or fuel-air explosives. This type of blast is much more effective at destroying buildings from the inside than normal (‘condensed’) explosives. One factor is the greater energy release from explosive mix that takes oxygen from the air, but the other is the sustained impulse that a fuel-air blast produces. Many structures rely on gravity for their structural strength -– arches are a good example –- or have very limited ability to withstand a horizontal load. A fuel-air blast has long enough duration to cause such structures to lose their integrity, and basically they just fall apart.
Terrorists have known about these weapons for some time; five years ago the IRA were reported to be collaborating with FARC in Colombia to develop a fuel-air device, with every possibility that the ‘recipe’ would be shared with other groups.
Last month the reporting restrictions were lifted on the trial in Britain of terror suspect Dhiren Barot. His key plan was reportedly called the ‘Gas Limos Project’ in which limousines packed with cylinders of propane and explosives were to be placed in car parks underneath crowded buildings. Barot has pleaded guilty to the charges against him.
What’s interesting here is the use of gas cylinders as well as normal explosives. The 1993 plot to blow up the World Trade Center using 1300 lbs of a urea/nitric acid composition failed. A fuel-air device might be much more effective. (And indeed, out there on the fringe there really are people who think the WTC was destroyed by such devices ) However it has to be said that engineering an effective fuel-air blast is a major technical challenge. Simply sticking some explosives around a propane tank might get you an impressive fireball but it would not necessarily generate much of a blast –- this requires the gas and air to be thoroughly mixed in exactly the correct ratio over a large volume and then ignited correctly.
Meanwhile fiction struggles to catch up -- BBC TV series Spooks recently featured an episode with terrorists attempting to use a thermobaric bomb in London.
The technology may be new, but the general idea goes way back. A group of religious fanatics aimed to destroy the British Houses of Parliament and wipe out the entire government on November 5th, 1605. The blast was to be provided by 36 barrels of gunpowder stowed in the cellars below the House. The plot was betrayed, but date is marked annually with bonfires and fireworks in England –- “Remember, remember the 5th of November”
This Washington Post Magazine story, on "The Bomb Squad," is one of the best reads you'll get in the mainstream press on the reality of the counter-bomb fight in Iraq.
There's only one, teeny-tiny problem with the piece: It's not really about a "bomb squad," or explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) unit, at all. Nobody is asked to defuse any bombs. Instead, the story centers around what appears to be a group of combat engineers -- EOD's blood rivals. These guys go combing roads for improvised explosives and, if they have any brains at all, call in EOD once the bombs are found.
In either case, the story is well worth checking out. Here's a snippet:
And this is where the whole expedition turns . . . well, into a "Wizard of Oz" moment for me. Because as I peer through the haze of the Iraqi noon, the Buffalo's claw ponderously raking the grass beside the road, I realize that the heart of the Pentagon's program for defeating IEDs [improvised explosive devices] is: 1) buy some armored trucks with big windows; 2) send young soldiers out to drive up next to bombs; 3) investigate with a phone truck [which is what the author says the Buffalo reminds him of].
As Tate points out later: "I've seen tanks destroyed. I've seen Bradleys destroyed . . . There's only so much armor can do."
Fortunately, this particular wired rock turns out to be an irrigation pump. After another hour or so, I'm dropped off at a nearby patrol base.
Fifteen minutes later, Tate's RG-31 nearly runs over an IED.
McGorvin -- dubbed "the Jedi master" by his fellow soldiers for his ability to, as they put it, "detect ordnance" -- tells me about it the next day as he fidgets on a torn couch behind the TOC. He explains that he sensed the bomb a mile before he reached it -- noticing first the grinning face of a taxi driver who squatted down behind his cab to key a Motorola phone. A few minutes later as the convoy rumbled through a small town, McGorvin felt it again outside a cluster of mud wattle shacks, their yards suspiciously empty.
Then, all at once, his RG-31 passed a mound of dirt with a cone of rusty metal showing through its side. McGorvin's gaze locked on a sliver of blue plastic tucked behind the mound. "I got something!" he yelled. "I don't know what it is, but it's got a cellphone on it!"
The RG-31's armor wouldn't protect McGorvin standing in his gunner's nest, so, as radios barked and the convoy scattered, he tucked his thighs against his chest and squatted.
"McGorvin -- good looking," Tate shouted as their truck finally jolted to a stop outside the bomb's blast radius.
WWI Mine-Mashers to Iraq
The armed services are spending billions and billions to figure out fancy new ways to stop improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. But the latest trick is an oldie -- dating back to World War I -- and couldn't be less high tech.
The contraptions are called mine rollers -- sets of wheels mounted in front of a vehicle, basically. When they roll over a mine or a pressure-activated IED, the wheels trigger the bomb. Because the vehicle is some distance behind the rollers, much of the bomb blast wave does not reach the vehicle, dramatically reducing the damage. And the vehicle lives to see another day. The Marine Corps just bought 150 sets from General Dynamics, according to Defense Industry Daily.
This idea sounds glaringly obvious. So you might wonder why it took the military more than 3 years to put the rollers up. In fact, the idea of a mine roller originated in 1918, to help nascent tanks deal with the anti-tank mines of that era. Many of the earliest IEDs in Iraq were built with anti-tank mines. Why didn't anybody in the Army Engineer School, for instance, make the connection?
Chalk some of it up to military bureaucracy. When it comes to mine-clearance, combat engineers and explosive ordnance disposal techs sometimes have overlapping lines of responsibility. (Which helps fuel an often-bitter rivalry.) At times, who exactly is supposed to develop bomb- and mine-fighting gear has been a blurry question, as well. The Counter-IED Task Force is now supposed to be in charge. But we'll see.
There are several legitimate concerns with the mine rollers that I am not going to mention here. However, my answer to these concerns are: If the insurgents do that, it would make their IEDs more detectable. Moreover, the standoff will interfere with aiming.
A friend and I were working on a similar concept, a Humvee roller attachment. However, we could not find a machinist to build our prototype. Now that I am deployed, we could not continue our commercial venture. One feature of our design was that it was telescoping, meaning that we can vary the distance of the rollers to the vehicle. We can change the distance to respond to changes in IED tactics. Maybe General Dynamics will incorporate the feature into their next run of mine rollers, too.
In what was dubbed "Operation Kaboom," every purchase the cops made was legal - and aroused little suspicion - even driving their simulated truck bomb throughout the city.
Although the two cops had no specialized knowledge of bomb-making, they were able manufacture an explosive more powerful than the one used in the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
"We did it with no difficulty whatsoever," said [Richard] Falkenrath, the NYPD's top anti-terror cop, who testified at a congressional hearing yesterday and disclosed the making of the bomb. When the operation was complete, the officers drove the simulated bomb around the city's bridges and tunnels, sources said. They were not detected.
There is one, tiny bit of good news in this otherwise skin-crawling story: When the cops tried to buy 2,450 pounds of ammonium nitrate in upstate Rensselaer County, it "aroused some suspicion from the owner of the distribution plant, who contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms following the purchase. The ATF launched an investigation, but the NYPD notified them that it was an undercover operation."
Iraqi TV Ad: Stop Your Suicide Bombing
Coming soon to Iraqi TV: million-dollar, sixty-second, public service announcements, featuring "exploding cars, flying Matrix-style stuntmen and... messages like 'Don't Suicide Bomb.'"
Newsweek reports from "an industrial block in downtown LA [turned] into a busy Baghdad square" -- the scene for a 120-camera shoot, designed to capture simulated carnage in the "frozen-in-time feeling" of "The Matrix." The spot is supposed to persuade wannabe insurgents to put down their IEDs. Never mind the fact that "the cost of owning a TV is often prohibitive for the average Iraqi."
At least 60 extras dressed in hijabs, kaffiyehs and polyester-wool blend slacks were herded onto the set to simulate an average shopping day. But there was hardly any Arabic spoken on this Baghdad street. Spanish, Punjabi and even Italian could be heard as extras gathered around the Kraft services table to munch on chips and guacamole. When asked if he is Iraqi, Bidkar Ramos, an extra on the set, laughs. "No, I'm Chinese and Mexican,” he says. “Like most of these people, I'm just a look-alike."
Onlookers were later asked to stand back as the pyrotechnic crew blew up a poor old Yugo coupe and stunt men and women, padded under their Arab garb, were thrust into the air with ropes and pulleys to simulate the impact of a bomb exploding...
This pricey and unorthodox attempt to subdue the violence is backed by a group of mystery donors. "I call them an independent, non-governmental group of scholars, non political people," says Plotkin. "Some may live in Iraq, some may live abroad. For a variety of different reasons—from safety concerns to wanting the focus to remain on the issue itself, they decided to remain anonymous."
The picture shows what a real EFP munition looks like. This is M2 Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition (
Soldiers in Iraq were already encountering EFPs -- and the closely-related "shaped-charges" -- back in the 
Which is why I cringe every time I hear about some newbie 
EOD Training and Evaluation Unit Two, part of Naval Expeditionary Combat Command headquartered at this facility near Virginia Beach in southern Virginia, in November welcomed five two-man teams from Navy bases around the world, according to the unit's skipper, Commander Tom Smith, 42.
There's only one, teeny-tiny problem with the piece: It's not really about a "bomb squad," or explosive ordnance disposal (
The contraptions are called 
In what was dubbed "
Newsweek reports from "an industrial block in downtown LA [turned] into a busy Baghdad square" -- the scene for a 120-camera shoot, designed to capture simulated carnage in the "frozen-in-time feeling" of "