Avoiding Boom
Written by Adam Baddeley
GCT 2010 Volume: 1 Issue: 2 (August)
Defeating IEDs Before They Kill is the Only Answer.
In counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) technology, there is no single magic bullet that can see through the earth and walls and instantly detect then destroy or defuse any device. The reality is a lot different and often messier than that. In its place are a range of initially extemporized, but now increasingly coordinated, solutions that combine surveillance, detection and electronic interference with an overlay of fusion and integration to maximize their effect.
INTEGRATION, FUSION, PARTNERSHIP
To find the right mix of solutions, traditional defense companies are shining flashlights internally and externally to identify what is already available, then working in a true partnering environment with DoD to take laboratory-ready technology and make it ready for rapid fielding.
Jack Costello heads the Raytheon Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Task Force (RIEDDTF), which has become a nexus for the fielding of new C-IED technologies, working with JIEDDO and other DoD bodies to meld disparate solutions and technologies, whether they be sourced internally or, more likely, from other companies. Many have never before been involved in the defense sector, but have something critical to offer. Costello said, “I can think of many efforts that we have put together in which we are partnered with some small business or businesses.”
The RIEDDTF dates from 2006, when Raytheon’s chairman and CEO William H. Swanson decided the company was not doing enough to support the deployed warfighter in attacking the IED challenge. Outlining how RIEDDTF operates, Costello added, “We had stovepiped approaches that did not contribute to solution synergies or integrated systems. Our initial challenge was to figure out all that we were doing. I was worried that we had some wonderful technologist on the edges of Raytheon, and we just couldn’t get to that individual; he or she didn’t know who we were and didn’t know what the problem was.”
The RIEDDTF also works very closely with JIEDDO to understand the nature of the threats, learning very quickly that the threat was constantly evolving almost on a daily basis, posing perhaps the greatest challenge from a technology standpoint.
Costello said, “The next thing we did was a CONOPS to help our scientists and technologists scope the problem. We also built an architecture to support design of a systems integration approach to the problem. We then offered both of those to the JIEDDO, to use as they saw fit to incorporate in their ongoing plans.”
In parallel, Raytheon commissioned a search firm to conduct an outreach to small businesses, and establish a website to encourage ideas and recommendations. Total submissions peaked in early 2009. Costello said that about 40 percent of the total ideas were deemed worth of follow up, adding, “As a result of this outreach program, we have also been directed by JIEDDO to partner with small businesses that have gone directly to JIEDDO.”
Over the last few years, the RIEDDTF developed a number of solutions in the field today, with more in the final stages of testing under JIEDDO. Costello outlined a number of solutions in the latter category, “In one case, we have partnered with a small company who have developed a sensing capability that fills a certain detection gap in a very sophisticated IED scenario. They don’t have the wherewithal to do the systems integration nor bring it to a market production capability. We do, and JIEDDO linked us up. The next step is to undertake a JIEDDO-led capabilities and limitation test, which subject to success could see it fielding six to eight months.”
A solution to defeat another type of IED threat is also in the final stages of its capabilities and limitations test, and prototypes could be deployable to theater in a few months. A third area where Raytheon is partnered with a number of small businesses is in the detection of suicide bombers at standoff distances that are usable from an operator’s standpoint using a systems-of-systems approach.
Costello said, “We have large number of solutions in the mill and we can respond to the changes that are directed by JIEDDO. Much of our technologies are working on the detection side of the house. So we do everything from the use of strategic to operational to tactical assets to do very early detection of this threat—technologies focused far left of boom.”
GIVING IEDS A MULE KICK
While the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is canceled, many elements still live on and are being used to help conduct the current fight, including in the C-IED area, with unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) originally conceived and developed for FCS now being considered for that role.
One such FCS survivor is the Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE), part of a family of UGVs, each with differing degrees of autonomy, that once numbered 11. Now just three remain, including MULE, formerly a several strong sub-group of UGVs, with the Army moving forward with a single variant—the Armed Robotic Vehicle-Assault (Light), a 3.5 ton class platform carrying both guns and missiles.
Powered by a diesel electric drive and carried on airless tires, the MULE’s engineering evaluation unit is currently in test with risk mitigation continuing in relation to the platform’s suspension and mobility algorithms. In May, DoD, working through the current program manager, asked prime contractor Lockheed Martin how fast they could put a MULE variant equipped with a C-IED package into the field.
Morri Leland, director of business development, Tactical Missiles and Combat Maneuver Systems explained, “We do have solutions, using several different sensors and jamming technologies in a comprehensive IED solution. [For example], one of the early ideas for the MULE was to put a roller on the front. A Lockheed Martin company called Gyrocam already has a mast-mounted system on vehicle that is used for counter-IEDs today, with several hundred in theater now.
“What the MULE brings is the platform,” Leland commented, “These are autonomous smart networked vehicles and take combat to the next level. The introduction of UAVs transformed aviation and transformed warfare. Imagine putting that level of sophistication on ground vehicles. That is going to happen and that is the difference between a ground robot and an autonomous vehicle. Imagine a [MULE] in a C-IED role, doing route clearance as it does it solo, only requiring interaction with a soldier and a joystick who is watching the screen. We really believe that this is the next level of technology.”
UNBLINKING EYES
One of the most effective ways to counter IEDs is through a combination of eyes on the terrain, either directly through the ‘Mk1 Eyeball’ or via electro-optic surveillance in high resolution and definition, daylight, color, night vision and infrared to develop understanding over time. Dave Strong, vice president marketing at FLIR Government Systems made the case, “It is almost like police work, where the cop gets to know the neighborhood and get an idea when something is not right—when the shop keepers who are there everyday disappear. If you have a high resolution, long range sensor capability on a vehicle or with a dismounted soldier, then you can observe the environment, and if an IED does go off you might be able to find the trigger man running away. If you have persistent surveillance, you can say who was in that spot over several days or weeks. It’s a lot of careful intelligence work that goes into it, rather than a technological magic bullet.”
Those characteristics that are critical to the successful operation of the sensor often appear mundane, such as reliability. Strong said, “The sand, dust and solar loading in Iraq and Afghanistan oftentimes demands for exceeding mil-spec requirements. If a product is just qualified to mil-spec, the product reliability might be compromised. Products must exceed mil-spec to be reliable.” This additional hardening against the environment actually reduces the costs of ownership, which in turn enables a greater number of sensors to be acquired, further expanding coverage.
Strong continued, “When we make these things more reliable, we are also driving costs out. Rather than a 100 percent sparing level seen in other systems, we don’t need anywhere near that. That vastly lowers the program’s costs. The other key aspect is having a maintenance capability close to where the systems are being used. When failure inevitably does occur, if you have to send something back to the U.S. for repair, that greatly increases the turnaround time. Instead, we have facilities in Dubai and Abu Dhabi that take care of the vast majority of maintenance and repair requirements. That is measured in days, not weeks, reducing total program costs further.”
Combined, this approach offers improvement over an alternate strategy of using large number of lower cost COTS solutions. “Every time the military has tried to do that, they have been deeply disappointed and see the cost go up. The reality is that you can’t give a kit to those at the tip of the spear that isn’t reliable and that isn’t really suited to that environment.”
JAMMING THE THREAT
ITT has been providing DoD with the means of preventing the detonation of radiocontrolled IEDs for a number of years. Its involvement dates from the supply of the Shortstop electronic protection system deployed during Desert Storm, designed to spoof proximity fused warheads into detonating significantly downrange, protecting soft targets and troops in the open. In response to the use of RF-based triggers by insurgents in Operation Iraqi Freedom, ITT adapted Shortstop to create Warlock Green, one of the first systems deployed. To provide a more adaptable solution, the company developed the Crew Vehicle Receiver Jammer [CVRJ], which was selected for the current DoD’s Counter Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare requirement. [CREW] 2.1. Paul Mueller, vice president and general manager of ITT’s Force Protection Systems business area, said, “One of the significant advantages of the CVRJ that we are currently delivering under the CREW 2.1 contract is that through a combination of Army and internal investment, we have developed an architecture that gives us the ability to not only meet the current threat, but has enough growth capacity in the inherent structure of the system to be able to add capability is response the introduction of new threats by the enemy.”
The CVRJ’s hardware architecture was designed for significant growth in terms of bandwidth and frequency coverage via a programmable capability that Mueller describes as analogous to the JTRS architecture. Although the CREW 2.1/CVRJ architecture allows for upgrades, critical in responding to an innovative and agile enemy, there are limitations to any architecture or physical implementation. The next generation CREW 3.3 and the Army’s concept of Integrated Electronic Warfare Systems (IEWS) are moving the state of the art from a single function capability to a system of systems approach.
Mueller said, “Single function boxes take up space and consume power. If we are going to make that investment, we consider how we do more than just one thing. That is what CREW 3.3 and IEWS are providing with multifunctional, interoperable communications and electronic warfare capabilities.
“One of the strategies we are working on is leveraging both government and industry investment and emerging technologies for IEWS and CREW 3.3 and offer technology insertion into the installed base of CVRJ to make it relevant against the emerging requirement of multifunctional EW comms interoperability. We are looking at specific targeted technology insertion that will not only maintain the current counter RCIED functionality, but look at how we bring comms interoperability into the same environment.
“In the age of constrained budgets, three years [the typical service life of a CREW system without upgrade] is not a significant endurance. When we look at CREW 3.3 and where IEWS wants to go, there are forwardthinking standards so that the life of any particular design will be tied more to the lifespan of a threat than the lifespan of certain technology, because we will be able to replace key components as the processing power receiver sensitivity improves, without necessarily having to disassemble and reconstruct the physical configuration. I would expect that we would be looking at a significantly longer life for the base system of six to 10 years as technology advances.”
The contractors on CREW 3.3, ITT and Northrop Grumman are proceeding to a critical design review in December, which is expected to lead to a down select to a single contractor with initial fielding in late 2012.
SUPPORTING THE WARFIGHTER
Inserting new technology is not simply a question of dropping off a box of equipment at a dusty airfield. While some aspects of the C-IED battle require greater density of technologies already familiar to troops at the tip of the spear, alleviating a significant portion of the training and maintenance burden, others have required the introduction of solutions that are genuinely new to the troops required to operate them. The ability to jam the signal used to remotely detonate radio-controlled IEDs is one such technology, with the specialist knowledge for their operation, maintenance and training a scarce resource prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, carefully husbanded in units tasked with electronic warfare (EW). To rapidly expand that capability across the ground forces, the DoD has tapped industry to help them provide support installation and implementation of solutions and enabling the supply chain.
One such contractor is Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which holds a number of contracts across the services. One of its most recent is the Marine Corps CREW Program, awarded in September, in which the corporation became the program support integrator addressing installation, logistics and maintenance, worth up to $120 million until its conclusion in 2014.
Barb Doornink, SAIC senior vice president/ operations manager, explained, “One of the things that makes our approach to this a little different with the Marine Corps is how we manage the logistics information for Marines far forward in the field so that they have everything they need when they need it. We use a management tool system that we developed that allows our FSRs to be in near real-time connection back with the government program, and certainly with our staff through these computers. That enables us to manage far forward with fewer assets.”
Karl Voepel, assistant vice president/ CREW PSI program manager, added, “We help integrate any and all CREW systems that the Marine Corps procures into their current fleet of MRAPs, HMMWVs and other rolling stock. We maintain all the CONUS warehousing and an engineering staff to quickly integrate USMC CREW systems into the fleet. We are also tasked to perform initial fielding and all new equipment training for the Marine Corps on CREW systems.”
User preferences from Marines in the field are fed back to CONUS on a daily basis via work orders from SAIC personnel supporting troops in forward bases. These are collated on a monthly and quarterly basis and are used to nominate improvement executed via the failure analysis and corrective action system and the engineering change proposal process.
Tom Lindenmeyer, vice president/business development manager, concluded, “I have talked with Marines that have come back from deployment where they say this piece of gear has saved their lives. They are better at using them in their operational profiles and there is more awareness at the senior NCO and junior officer levels. We are getting to the real heart of units. Over time, the acceptance of this piece of gear has made it as integral as any radio or rifle that they have out there.” ♦