DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • 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
  • Crazy Ivan
  • 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
  • F-35 Watch
  • 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 Bubble with Joe Buff
  • 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
  • PEO Soldier
  • 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
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bomb Squad » Phone Bomb Interceptor on the Line?

Phone Bomb Interceptor on the Line?

In Iraq, I had knowledgeable folks swear to me that cell phones had never been used to detonate bombs there. Those images we’ve all seen on CNN — they’re of long-range cordless telephone, not cells. The cell network just isn’t reliable enough for a quality-conscious bomber, they say. Since I’ve been home, I’ve had other people swear the exact opposite to me.
ring_ring.jpgEither way, New Scientist is right in saying that cells “provide a simple yet effective way for terrorists to remotely trigger a bomb.” And that’s why it’d be great news if an idea for “a portable device devised by US defence contractor Raytheon [to] quickly identify and disable such weapons” really works out. {Here’s a link to the patent.)
The device includes a transmitter that mimics a cell phone base station and a metal horn to concentrate the signal from a 10 milliwatt power source in a single direction. Scanning… a concealed phone… with the tool… tricks it into thinking it is in range of a new network base station and blocks it from any genuine stations in the vicinity.
The suspect phone will also respond with a handshake signal containing its phone number, allowing a network operator to temporarily disconnect it from the real network, and preventing it from receiving a detonation call.

(Big ups: CC)

Share |

August 10th, 2005 | Bomb Squad | 11249 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/08/10/phone-bomb-interceptor-on-the-line/Phone+Bomb+Interceptor+on+the+Line%3F2005-08-11+01%3A51%3A55noahmax You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Rapid Fire 8/10/05 | Rapid Fire 8/11/05 » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. James says:
    August 10, 2005 at 10:14 pm

    Nioe concept, but why be so defensive. How about a system that calls every cell phone in iraq. Have it go off at random times, conveying a message from the Iraq government.
    You get to spread offical word & have the benefit of making a bomb maker’s life a tad more scary.

    Reply
  2. Maurs says:
    August 11, 2005 at 12:41 am

    Can’t you jam cell phone signals pretty effectively? Why not just do that? It’s not like the insurgents can change it up like they do to defeat other devices — they have to use the cell phone infrastructure.

    Reply
  3. TheMasterTimekeeper says:
    August 11, 2005 at 3:35 am

    Maurs,
    Jammability depends on the sophistication of the network. CDMA, for instance, is very difficult to jam due. This system is a little more sophisticated , and I can’t think of a countermeasure that doesn’t involve reprogramming the firmware or something equally exotic.
    Easier to just use some other type of remote, which may be easier to jam.
    (I really doubt CDMA has made its way to Iraq, though. I’d guess their cell networks are still first– or second-generation.)

    Reply
  4. Mark Buzolich says:
    August 11, 2005 at 8:21 am

    Question: By using a different type of receiver on an explosive device, can’t the signal from a third parties cell detonate that device (if rigged to do so)? Sure would cut down on the amount of annoying people making and receiving calls in public places.

    Reply
  5. Alex says:
    August 11, 2005 at 10:10 am

    Iraq is currently all-GSM, after the Representative from Qualcomm’s bid to make them have phones they couldn’t use outside Iraq failed..which makes it harder to jam due to frequency agility. Not just that, but you have to consider whether shutting down everyone else’s phones is a net gain
    UMTS (GSM 3G) or CDMA2000 would be harder still — wider bands, cell-breathing, better encryption. The real solution, though, if you want to bug a mobile network, is to plug into the core network rather than the RAN — but doing that tactically would be tough.

    Reply
  6. The Cenobyte says:
    August 11, 2005 at 10:29 am

    Maurs above I think has the best idea. The cell network in Iraq is all brand new, built and operated by US contractors. Why not setup a system that calls every phone in Iraq (Land lines too) two or three times a day at random. Setup a system that gives out good information to anyone that answers the phone and listens. It can easily be billed as a service to the Iraqi people, while at the same time pervent most of the long range cordless and cell phones from being used as a remote detenation device. I bet it can be done pretty cheap as well…

    Reply
  7. Alex says:
    August 11, 2005 at 11:46 am

    Incredibly simple workaround. Practically every mobile phone since about 1997 has had the facility to assign different alerts to different numbers. Just set the number that will call to ring and/or vibrate and the rest to silent, yer bomb still works properly and all that scheme achieves is to piss off the Iraqi public still further.
    BTW, the three mobile operators in Iraq are not at all American. The biggest one, in central Iraq, is run by Egyptians, Orascom Telecom, the southern one is Kuwait’s MTC with a participation by Vodafone.

    Reply
  8. Byron Skinner says:
    August 11, 2005 at 2:40 pm

    Good Morning Gentlemen and Ladies,
    As someone who worked for Nokia USA for over five years I can say all the proposals you have suggested are possiable.
    But I think it is more then prudent to keep our postings limited to open source information and avoid speculation of how something might be done.
    Keep in mind that others also read us and I’m sure that some even those who post are fishing for information.
    Many of you clearly know what you are talking about and I’m sure a lot more. Others, well they may consider this board to be finishing school.
    Ex. CDMA 2000 is an American Standard,the CDMA standard for Europe and the mid-east that is an overlay for GSM is WCDMA.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner
    “Stewart’s Platoon”

    Reply
  9. r1t says:
    August 11, 2005 at 3:42 pm

    You spelled “defense” wrong in your article.

    Reply
  10. Oyama Hall says:
    August 12, 2005 at 8:09 am

    My idea is based on my experience in routing data in networks. In a remote access solution, a user can connect to a network where they are authenticated. The connection is dropped and the router or Access Server calls back the user at the number it has in its records. Its called PPP Callback.
    Wireless phones are authenticated via their phone numbers. We need to change the code for cell phones that connect to cell towers in the Iraq region. When a user powers on a cell phone, the cell phone will connect to the nearest tower. After a connection has been successfully made, the LECs switch back at the central office will call back the cell phone that connected in 5 minutes or some other determined amount of time.
    The solution is that Id imagine that the enemy keeps the phone off until they place the IED in position. (Otherwise they risk detonating the IED within their own proximity.) Upon positioning the IED, they have to turn on the phone. (Which establishes a connection with the closest tower.) After a predetermined amount of time, the phone would automatically ring because it was just connected to the network (which is now seeking authorization), thus detonating the IED and saving lives.

    Reply
  11. David Todeschini says:
    August 12, 2005 at 10:57 am

    The TRUTH is that there is NO WAY to stop a terrorist who is bent on dying for his “cause”. The terrorist is quite simply an efficient killing machine that is evidenced by 19 hijackers on 9–11 averaging 157.8 KILLS PER “SOLDIER”. The best we can do to stop terrorism, is to QUIT FOOLING OURSELVES into believing the LIES that the politicians are telling us. There is MUCH MORE than meets the eye here, and our involvement in Iraq has a parallel to the protracted agony of Vietnam.
    I will be discussing my new book “Land of Childhood’s Fears” on Radio Liberty (see http://​www​.radioLiberty​.com) on Thursday 8/18 at 6PM Eastern Time — check the web site for local stations or listen live / download archived programs. The United States is under control of a SHADOW GOVERNMENT, and has been since JFK was MURDERED by the CIA — I prove this in my book, and give references to sources, and describe the entire (proposed) scenario that fits all the available facts.
    Oh, and by the way, Colin Powell really made a fool of himself with the Domino Sugar thing after 9–11, because 200 TONS OF DRUGS A DAY is smuggled into the US — what’s 5 pounds of ANTHRAX or E-Bola amid all that.
    AMERICA — YOU NEED TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. Iraq is deja Vu all over again — shades of the Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened that got us into Vietnam. George Bush’s comments in a news conference yesterday 8/11 spoke volumes about his character. New we are in Iraq and can’t pull out — in order that we don’t “seem weak”. We need to invoke Article 25 and get this psychopath out of the White House.

    Reply
  12. Sephwin Lyrre says:
    August 12, 2005 at 5:05 pm

    This is very old news. They have been using kids walkie-talkie toy, short range radio (motorrola handheld), beeper, and anything that well accept a signal from any source. So, concentrating on just cell phones will not be enough.

    Reply
  13. N. R. Glenn says:
    August 12, 2005 at 8:35 pm

    If this can help our guys avoid even one IED bomb, booby-trap, or roadside ambush, it is worth looking into.

    Reply
  14. GREGG says:
    August 12, 2005 at 9:54 pm

    With our access of tech knowledge we should be able to mount a repeater on the lead vechile that will run millions of phone numbers per minute hopefully ringing the bomb phone.

    Reply
  15. Dave says:
    August 13, 2005 at 1:03 am

    In Richard Marcinko’s book Rogue Warrior (the biography) he talks about his Red Cell group building a transmitter that would defeat car bombs in Beruit. It was ruled out as unacceptable. Shortly thereafter the barracks was hit. Until we get as determined to stop them no matter the coat as they are to destroy us — it’s a losing game.

    Reply
  16. Lance says:
    August 13, 2005 at 7:35 pm

    How about going medieval on them…would an old-fashion spark-gap, sparking off at a high rate, might put out enough wide-band interference to keep the phone from receiving a complete dial-in sequence until the vehicle is past? Of course, it would make communications difficult from the vehicle as well, unless you could fix a receiver/transmitter to put data between sparks, or go direct to satellite, or only turn it on when you’re going through a hazardous area.

    Reply
  17. jim emmerson III says:
    August 14, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    after reading the vip300x technical specs, i learned that the vehicle mounted ied jammer found at http://​www​.bombjammer​.com happens to be a portable device that defeats rf ied threats. on the site i saw they also have a hand carried system the vip200.

    Reply
  18. Buck says:
    August 14, 2005 at 10:07 pm

    It sounds really hard. GO BRUINS!

    Reply
  19. David says:
    August 14, 2005 at 11:52 pm

    good pics of IED discovery
    http://​www​.fumento​.com/​i​r​aq/

    Reply
  20. Jonathan Storey says:
    August 16, 2005 at 4:04 am

    Whilst I was undertaking my final year university project on GSM cell phone positioning (based on a GSM phones ability to detect its location from its view of the network) I found a low-tech way of forcing a basic unmodified nokia to use one base station forsaking all others.
    Quite usefull for cheaper cross boader calls but also would make the jammer useless. Agree with earlier comments that concentrating on the trigger is not the best solution. Bomb detection via dogs and electronic noses are surely the way forward but easily.

    Reply
  21. EOD LT says:
    August 23, 2005 at 3:25 pm

    Noah,
    Come on, I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again, there has not been one single IED reported in the entire country of Iraq with a cell phone as the firing device. Who keeps feeding you this bull? This is really getting ridiculous.
    Please remember about OPSEC and what it means to the guys on the ground!

    Reply
  22. Bill says:
    August 29, 2005 at 9:36 am

    I have been there and lived through that. IEDs are made many way. Jam a cell phone and they will find other way to set it off. When the Warlocks came out it was great. Not only could the bad guys not use there cell phones, neither could we use the cingars. What a great plan. Nobody has c+c on either side. What a waste of money. Oh and by the way. Since the bad guys could not make the IEDs go bang with phones they tied a big long string to them and set them off like that. Low tech solution to a high tech army.

    Reply
  23. JMC says:
    October 6, 2005 at 9:29 am

    What we should do is to simply shut down all of the cell service in iraq, all paging systems and other electronic emanations. We then should setup up electronic checkpoints to locate and destroy rogue signals. The mujs will then have to setup their ieds the old fashioned way, meaning some loser will have to be a lot closer in order to set it off. We should also setup “decoy” convoys with predators running shotgun. When they hit the convoy, the team of predators should lay waste to a 1 click diameter around the explosion. We’ve all seen the vids of them blowing up our convoys, they are usually only a couple of hundred yards away when they detonate these. Make them wonder all the time if/when we’re going to waste them. We need to stop being reactive in this stuff and go postal at every opportunity! dammit!

    Reply
  24. Sgt G says:
    March 3, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    IED Jammers now work flawlessly. All would be bombers or Mujahadeen should approach US or allied forces with your hands raised and turn yourselves in. There is no further need to use this worthless tactic. You will be wasting your lives if you dont. Information should also be provided about the IED or bomb makers. You will recieve good food and rest.

    Reply
  25. Yangzj says:
    April 3, 2006 at 1:44 am
    Reply
  26. http://www.scions-of-fate.us says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    I would establish a strongest gang! I decide to buy hero coins on line.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
    • South of the Border Mayhem
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
    • Rise of the Cyber Arms Dealers
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    Recent Comments
    • Chinese Navy Requires Supercruising Fighter
      j-11 warplane :...
      chinese warplanes
    • China’s Military Spending Slows
      shenyang fighter :...
      chinese warplanes
    • China’s Military Spending Slows
      chinese warplanes :...
      chinese warplanes
    • China’s Military Spending Slows
      chinese warplanes :...
      chinese warplanes
    • China’s Military Spending Slows
      chinese warplanes :...
      chinese warplanes
    • Chinese Cyber War Skirmish Revealed
      chinese warplanes :...
      chinese warplanes
    • Can the Russkis Build Their 5th Gen Fighter?
      sukhoi articles :...
      sukhoi articles
    • South of the Border Mayhem
      You realize of course the robbery rate is 50% higher in the UK...
      STemplar
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
      Given that the class hasn't even really been...
      STemplar
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
      There are very few...
      Eugene Ellis
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage