Pentagon needs prodding to send in IED-busters

journal times ^ | 2/15/06

[rang1995]

Pentagon needs prodding to send in IED-busters

Deploy the golf carts, Mr. President.

Over the weekend we editorially lamented some of the misspending in the proposed new Defense Department budget and suggested some of the billions for high tech planes and submarines would be better spent on needed armor for our troops in Iraq and for better equipment for detecting improvised explosive devices.

Coincidentally, we learn from the Los Angeles Times reports, that such an IED-buster does exist - it's called a JIN or Joint IED Neutralizer - and it has destroyed 90 percent of roadside explosives in extensive Army tests last fall.

The JIN is a remote-controlled golf cart-like contraption that can be sent to clear roadways from a safe distance has a metal boom that extends from the cart and emits high-powered electric pulses that trigger homemade bombs

[rang1995]

Ted kennedy even grilled the generals yesterday about this--my god Still let them save g.i.lives It's all over the blogs--shoulnt be political--just military!! get it done

[F16Fighter]

Pentagon needs prodding to send in IED-busters.

And summarily execute caught perps ON THE SPOT.

[Wiz]

Loose lips sinks ships

[rang1995]

http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2006/02/bomb_buster_.html

[Marius3188]

Call them Spies or Mercs. The Geneva Conv. has no protection for them.

[rang1995]

my point is this is needed ASAP--it's not secret--was on fox news last year,now LA times--at least get them to IRAQ 90% sucess rate! the marines liked it and are getting them there ASAP

[F16Fighter]

"Call them Spies or Mercs. The Geneva Conv. has no protection for them."

Easy call.

Would send a great message -- and totally justifiable -- but the phony BS continues to kill Americans in the name of PC-ness.

[MPJackal]

So because a prototype works well, we can mass produce and deploy them immediately? I agree we should get some there but they won't be useful long. The terrorist will adapt and change tactics. IMHO.

[mbynack]

I saw the Fox special, but other than that I'm not really familiar with the technology.

One of the things the military will look at is how difficult is it to defeat the sensors on the detector? If the sweepers cost millions to purchase, train operators, deploy, and support, but can be defeated by tin foil or by burying the IED a foot under the ground it may not be cost effective.

The terrorists have millions of square miles to set the bombs up. The bombs can be moved easily. It would require thousands of these things with trained operators, spare parts, etc. to deploy them. What is the cost benefits and can the money be spent on better tools.

I'm not saying not to buy them. I'm just giving you something to think about.

[Cruz]

"Coincidentally, we learn from the Los Angeles Times reports, that such an IED-buster does exist - it's called a JIN or Joint IED Neutralizer - and it has destroyed 90 percent of roadside explosives in extensive Army tests last fall.

The JIN is a remote-controlled golf cart-like contraption that can be sent to clear roadways from a safe distance has a metal boom that extends from the cart and emits high-powered electric pulses that trigger homemade bombs.

Yet despite its impressive performance in military testing last fall only a dozen of the souped-up armor-plated vehicles have been built and they are not on the fast-track for deployment to Iraq, according to the newspaper reports."

WHY THE HELL ARE THESE JIN VEHICLES NOT IN IRAQ NOW??? I hate to be paranoid, but I believe the Democrats are holding anti-IED technology funding because they believe more dead or maimed Americans will help them at the ballot box.

[Sergio]

I'll wait for a few questions to be answered before I say anything on the matter.

For instance, how long does it take the device to clear a stretch of road? If it takes too long to do it's job, it may block the road to military traffic as effectively as the IEDs. Think of an ammo resupply convoy trying to get to soldiers taking enemy fire, and having to wait 1, 2, 3+ hours to get to the troops.

Is the device self contained or does it require an additional generator to supply the juice needed? Again, time constraints, and grouping of personnel and equipment where they would be vulnerable to sniper or mortar fire.

In the test, the device was 90% successful. At what depth were the IEDs buried? At what depth are IEDs usually buried in the combat zones? Defense contractors are notorious for cherry picking the test scenarios.

Still, it does look good that the Marines are going ahead with deployment anyway. The Corps decision does minimize my concerns somewhat as they seem to get it right most of the time.

Best Regards

Sergio

[manwiththehands]

"... proposed new Defense Department budget and suggested some of the billions for high tech planes and submarines would be better spent on needed armor for our troops in Iraq and for better equipment for detecting improvised explosive devices."

And how many of these high-tech planes and subs are being funded with "earmarks" to the budget ... and how much of the $85 BILLION Katrina relief fund could have been used to better equip our troops against IED's?

I thought we were a nation at war. I must have been dreaming all of it ...

[Sax]

Beware of this scenario:

STEP ONE: Hastily develop a product that will claim to reduce US casualties and conduct some tests designed for achieving a high success rate by playing to the best possible conditions for your product.

STEP TWO: Draw attention to your product by sending some anonymous letters to politicians who will use the DoD's non-purchase of your product as a political club to beat their opponents with.

STEP THREE: Cash checks and buy a Ferrari.


These products should be tested rigorously and they should also task demolition and technical experts to design weapons that would defeat these detectors so we can find the flaws before the enemy does.

[2ndClassCitizen]

You are giving away the Democratic strategy.

[rang1995]

I READ IT CAN TRAVEL UP TO 25-30 MILES PER HR

[SJSAMPLE]

Agreed.
I'm inclined to side with The Army when developing battlefield technology. The Army rarely gets it wrong with it comes to vehicles, aircraft, armor or rockets/missiles.

Spending $$$ on something "good enough" takes exactly those dollars away from something that REALLY works as designed.

[Sergio]

Hey rang1995, thanks for the info. 20 to 35 mph is pretty good, but I still have to wonder if it's traveling speed is the same as it's operational/sweep speed?

If the device can clear IEDs from a stretch of road at 90% while moving at 20 to 35 mph, then I'm in the "why aren't they there yet" camp.

Just remember one thing, count on the dems to "denounce the failures of the current administration" when one of the 10% of IEDs not detected causes casualties.

[centurion316]

Don't believe everything you read. Calling it not yet mature is a gross understatement. Unanimous assessment from those who know was that this was not yet ready for prime time. Marines are going to be very frustrated. They are also going to put lives at risk if they are not careful - very careful to the point that this not useful.

I will say that these guys are very good marketeers and they know the right people to talk to.

[centurion316]

Bingo Bango Bongo. You must know these guys too.

[MD_Willington_1976]

http://www.ionatron.net/

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001563.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ied12feb12,0,288814.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=06_07_2005_OM_01


big secret.. don't tell anyone...