backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 17 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Nov 10 at 7:01 PM


Marines use metal detectors to help spot IEDs  (Source: David Gilkey/NPR)
The U.S. military is now using aircraft and other technological advantages to try and stop deadly IED attacks on soldiers

As the United States Military sets its sights on deploying even more soldiers to Afghanistan, the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) remains an important issue to military experts.

Roughly three-fourths of soldier deaths suffered in Afghanistan are caused by IEDs planted by insurgents.  To help stifle IED use, the U.S. Air Force is helping identify when and where IEDs are planted by using specialized aircraft that have high-resolution cameras.

The aircraft can spot when an insurgent is planting an IED near a traveled road coalition forces are known to use, or when they make phone calls to help organized attacks on troops on patrol.  If an aircraft out patrolling doesn't spot an IED being planted, military officials are interested in deploying Humvees that are equipped with electronic jamming systems that can prevent an insurgent from triggering an IED as the patrol closes in.

During summer preparations for a major military mission in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson told his troops the following message:  "I'm concerned about the IEDs, and I know you are, too," he told the Marines. "There's a hell of a lot of IEDs out there. ... And we're going to kill the guys that have a chance to get out there and lay them. But they're out there, and you need to know that."

Piloted aircraft and unmanned drones -- which will increase in use over Afghanistan in the coming months -- have helped offer soldiers on the ground an increased sense of protection.

The main challenge is for officers to do a better job of integrating increased air-based surveillance with efforts on the ground to prevent attacks on Humvees and other vehicles.  The technology has been developed well enough that a fluid combination of air surveillance and troop interaction with locals should deter some attacks.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Food for thought
By crystal clear on 11/9/2009 10:02:39 AM , Rating: 3
You cannot confront guerilla warefare with conventional means.

You are fighting bandits & not a conventional army.

Learn from the Russians from their Afghan experience.




RE: Food for thought
By crystal clear on 11/9/2009 10:09:27 AM , Rating: 1
warefare should read warfare.


RE: Food for thought
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/9/2009 10:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
I think you would be quite surprised at how this all is being handled. A few more years and things will start falling into place.


RE: Food for thought
By amanojaku on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Food for thought
By inperfectdarkness on 11/9/2009 10:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
true.

just be also wary of those who believe we should discard all conventional weapons/methods in favor of asymmetrical tactics.


RE: Food for thought
By bildan on 11/9/2009 10:33:25 AM , Rating: 1
The Russians lost in Afghanistan largely because their technology didn't work very well but the technology the CIA was supplying the Mujaheddin worked spectacularly well.

That's the lesson on how to fight guerrillas - use more tech and fewer "boots on the ground".


RE: Food for thought
By HotFoot on 11/9/2009 10:46:57 AM , Rating: 5
Whatever keeps more soldiers coming home to their families when all is said and done...

There's some pretty cool ideas out there for countering IEDs. I used to work in the UAV industry and only got a glimpse of what folks are pondering. I really think continuous surveillance is the absolute best. In Afghanistan, even the old, noisy Sperwer the Canadians used to use was great. The insurgents would hear the Sperwer and run to ground. Who knows how many lives were saved just because the enemy realised they were being watched?

Now they use UAVs you can't hear, and that forces the insurgents to change tactics. That's simply and amazingly powerful tool - taking that knowledge away from the enemy. And that's all just conventional and IR camera technology.

There's also work on LADAR mapping of roadways that's accurate enough that you can fly along the terrain one day and create a baseline map. Then, fly along again ahead of a convoy and you can detect changes in the terrain down to a few millimetres. It becomes very hard to bury or hide anything, even things without a magnetic or EM signature.

As always, though, a major challenge is having enough of these eyes in the sky. I really think modern warfare is 99% intelligence. We've had the ability to destroy any target we desire for a long time - so long as we know where it is.


RE: Food for thought
By crystal clear on 11/9/2009 10:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
use more tech and fewer "boots on the ground".


Great slogan ! doubt if it will get things done on the ground.

Try using the crude ol tactics....hire some guns to fight your war, might work.


RE: Food for thought
By crystal clear on 11/9/2009 11:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
The U.K. does it the elegant way- they hire the gurkhas from Nepal.

The crude way- hire those battle hardened guerillas from Angola to Congo to elsewhere in Africa to get the job done.

Sort of "outsourcing" ....


RE: Food for thought
By Iaiken on 11/9/2009 12:50:36 PM , Rating: 3
The word "hire" is misleading in this context.

Nepalese who are recruited into the Brigade of Gurkha's are granted settlement rights in Britain after 4 years of service. They also receive the same pay, pensions and benefits as all other British regulars. Furthermore, they are fully bound by military law and operate under the purview of seasoned British officers.

The combination of soldiers who are willing and able to fight hard and for a long time with capable officers has proven to be a recipe for success. You can't really call them mercenaries as the brigade is now a sort of national tradition in Nepal. It's something that the young boys of Nepal aspire to and you'll have people give repeated try out until they either make it or are deemed too old...


RE: Food for thought
By BZDTemp on 11/9/2009 12:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Things can be learned from the Russian experience but technology has come a long way so a lot is also different (on both sides).

Regardless it is of course hard to win when the one side is using guerrilla and terror tactics but it was to be expected. I'm sure the sacrifice being made by our soldiers is not simply a waste and hopefully Afghanistan will eventually become a peaceful democratic nation.

PS. At least Russia is not supplying the Taleban with stinger missiles.


Low tech will counter high tech over time
By Wellsoul2 on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Low tech will counter high tech over time
By HaB1971 on 11/9/2009 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also if they set the IED at night no plane will see.


Wow what a clever and unexpected tactic, they'll never be seen in the dark. If only the clever tech guys would work out a way of seeing at night then we could end it all.

I'm sure the military have that covered by now


By Wellsoul2 on 11/9/2009 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. You have a point..that's when they send out the decoy
camels, yaks and goats to distract us.:-)


By twhittet on 11/9/2009 2:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
High tech detection needs to change as fast or faster than tactics change. That's the game we play - but it doesn't mean we should abandon high tech.

IED's are sometimes easier to see at night - a 155 round's heat signature is often easy to spot when it was freshly placed - the metal doesn't match the temp of the ground. I can't see the enemy wasting time digging up multiple spots - they already have a hole dug, they'll put an IED there.
The technology won't save us completely, but incrementally makes it harder to plant and use IED's.

As for a remote controlled or armored vehicle in front - that'd be of little help, then they just hit your second vehicle, or third, or last.


UAV's on IEDs
By moenkopi on 11/10/2009 1:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
What is needed is persistent surveillance. dirigibles with IR cameras that are able to keep track of every individual in an area that troops are likely to go in the next 2 weeks. Such video data can be logged and reviewed. There really is nowhere to hide and the IED problem can be solved in open areas. In closed urban areas, is a different story.




Seriously?
By FPP on 11/10/2009 7:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
It took a scant eight years to arrive at the conclusion that they should recon, aerially, the roads to be used with UAV's before they travel them????




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki