It certainly sounds big league: tens of millions of dollars and the promise of a modern-day “Manhattan Project” to figure out how to stop improvised bombs. And the need couldn’t be greater, of course; just on Saturday, another six soldiers and marines were killed in Iraq by jury-rigged explosives.
But is the Pentagon really doing all it can to stop the weapons responsible for more than half of the war’s 17,000 American casualties? It sure doesn’t seem that way. Consider this story, from Defense Technology International.
The 1940s Manhattan Project is estimated to have cost $20 billion. In Fiscal 2006, the Navy plans to spend just $15 million within ONR [Office of Naval Research] on its new drive, with another $15 million to be spread among the Navy’s five affiliated research centers: Pennsylvania State University, Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins University, and the universities of Texas, Washington and Hawaii. [The Navy recently became the quarterback for counter-bomb research — ed.] Another $15 million may be allocated to other universities outside the affiliate network.
Keep in mind, the Pentagon’s fringe-science arm is planning to spend $38 million next year on giant blimp research, and $200 million on “cognitive” computers. So $45 million isn’t all that much, in Pentagon terms.
“When admirals start talking about ‘Manhattan Projects,’ do you know how much money was spent on that?” John Anderson, a chemical engineer and provost of Ohio’s Case Western Reserve University, asks. “You can’t have a Manhattan-Project result with a tin-cup donation… If you’re going to influence the academic research environment, you have to provide some resources and a compelling reason for doing it.”
Of course, it’d be easier to ponying up the big bucks if there was some technological “silver bullet,” some magic solution, that could instantly neuter improvised explosive devices — or least make them easier to find. There ain’t. Which is why the Pentagon is shifting its counter-bomb research “away from short-term solutions toward more basic research,” the magazine notes.
After several open calls to industry and hundreds of proposals, the task force already has picked most of the “low-hanging fruit,” according to the group’s acting technology director…
Proposals are becoming repetitive, he says, particularly in the fields of ballistic protection and IED signal jamming, areas where the task force has placed the most emphasis so far.
But, even with these proven technologies, it’s hard not to get the feeling that bomb-stopping isn’t anywhere close to the top of the Pentagon priority list. Yes, an extra $250 million was sent over to the Joint IED Defeat Task Force in October, to buy more jammers. I assume that’s on top of the agency’s $1.2 billion per year budget. But even with all that extra cash, only a slim minority of American troops on the ground — less than 15%, I’d estimate — will get the jammers, which are one of the few proven methods for actually keeping the bombs from going off.
And remember: getting these jammers to frontline troops helps in the war after Iraq, too. If IEDs continue to be this effective, you can bet, for the next decade or two, guerilla groups will start jury-rigging some bombs as soon as U.S. land.
Meanwhile, there’s talk at the Pentagon of trying to pare back its new destroyer program, aimed at fighting the Chinese one day. The hope is to maybe bring the costs down to a mere $2 billion per ship. Research and development funding for the Missile Defense Agency remains strong, however, at an annual clip of $8.8 billion. Should we therefore assume that the Pentagon thinks a possible ICBM attack is eight times more important than the roadside bombs that are killing our troops today?
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
This writer goes from IED’s to destroyers in an instant!
Make a point about one subject please. Are you saying only a small hahdfull of troops benefit from $250,000,000 in jammers? I hear jammers don’t work so well on pressure detonated devices or ones with IR triggers.
So what’s your point anyways??
To author: Please tone down you “left”ism…and yes…I did just make up that word.
(but you know what I mean)
its a daily bases on this site that you sonstantly bash the US Gov for spending so much money on such n such, then you turn around and say spend more money on this…MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
and of course an ICBM attack is much less likely then a terrorist road side bomb, but it needs a bigger budget because its more important…which would you choose…having a humvee get blown up…..or a city.
To Author: Yes, these post are becoming more and more “leftist”.
Please study and use common sinse before articles are posted. Its started to get anoying.
About the destroyers… I would think our present destroyers are well suited for taking out modern enemy ships. That along with our airpower and submarines would seem to be an extremely tough obsticle. Maybe someone with more knowledge on navy warfair could inform us better. There is defiantly nothing wrong with keeping our navy the most elite.
Look, calling for a “Manhattan Project” for such a broad threat–and meaning it literally, not as “we need to get creative and come up with something”–just doesn’t make much sense.
There are so many different types of IEDs, so many different triggering mechanisms, that one solution isn’t going to do everything. In addition, I doubt that we’re going to face many conventional enemies (like China) that are going to present a large IED threat. While we’re fighting this campaign, the rest of the world goes on.
Ultimately, the best way to stop IEDs? To use Iraqi troops, police, and civilians to help us acquire intel and prosecute terrorists and insurgents before they can deploy IEDs in the first place. Until then? If anybody can come up with ideas that sound promising, they should be funded… pretty much period.
I dont mean to pile on but the I in IED stands for improvised meaning no two are really alike and they are always changing so 20billion would only fix todays IED while tomorrows would be in need of another 20bill like Trojan mentioned on some of tommorows. Also some of those jammers and stuff have side effects and mess with other equipment like our UAV’s small ones that are crutial to our effort its a balance. Besides I dont think the next time we invade a country planning occupation we will just leave all of those ammo dumps to be looted we will either guard or destroy and move on. Iraq is overflowin with bomb material it was a learning expeirence thats why combat expeirence is priceless for future and present campains.
Personally I would lean more towards armor and heavy equipment. Now I fully believe in the Future Combat System just more of a door kicking force then let the Heavy stuff rolls in to crush hold and crush. I think we could go with light weight equipment setup to take add on armour turning light to heavy. In light they could be sent in fast then once thier follow up could heavy them up to for the long slog. But I am holding my judgement on FCS until I see what the FCS end product looks like then make a determination.
To Trojan, Ares and Mike.
Obviously this is your first time to this site eh? DefenseTech are comparing the economic costs of two weapons systems.
One that is real and effects tactical and operational land warfare and the other which is at the present time is a non-existent, big business pipe dream. Please refrain from commenting if you lack a clue.
>I hear jammers don’t work so well on pressure
>detonated devices or ones with IR triggers.
One method disabled means alot. Radio frequency is convenient for use at long distance, but when that is disabled, the user is forced to use other less effective systems. Pressure detonated IEDs are passive and the user lacks control, while IR would only be useful at a limited distance. If some one here thinks that jammers have no meaning while counter measures are used, that person is an idiot for not recognizing disabling such methods, leaving only other less effective methods.
To follow up on what Pedestrian just said: one of the reasons IEDs are a problem is Iraq because their component parts are so plentiful. Garage-door openers, kids’ toys, walkie-talkies — anything working with the RF spectrum has been used as an IED trigger.
In comparison, there aren’t a whole lot of commercially-available devices transmitting in the infrared bands. So stopping radio frequencies does more than stop one variety of IED. It stops the vast majority.
nms
ClueTrain
no, I swing by this site virtually everyday, and have done so for over a year now.
Are you telling me that this article had no biased to the “left” or “right”? If you think this article was completely unbiased then I think its you who neeeds to read a little deeper.
The fact is, day in and day out this site critizes the war in Iraq and president Bush, as well as the cost over-runs in a lot of programs.
All i’m saying is the best news, is unbiased news.
I have been visiting this site for about a year and a half and I have to agree that many articles are beginning to be slanted more towards using facts for the author’s opinion rather than facts for us to decide.
The government, adminstration and others do need a lot of work… but they’re not trying to do harm to their own.
Cluetrain, I too have been reading this web page for almost a year. The only thing that bothers me is the little comments here and there that can appear to be “ignorant” or maybe a little over “opinionated”. The overall theme on just about everything is pretty good thoe. Dont take any of these comments personaly, there just constructive criticism. :)
BTW, this is a very good site.