The Navy Reveals Secret Device to Defeat IEDs

Popular Mechanics ^ | 6/23/2010 | David Hambling

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Last week the Pentagon revealed the existence of a new weapon in the war against roadside bombs: a beam of radio-frequency energy that can detonate hidden Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) at a distance.

And its creators say the potential does not stop there—the beam could be also used to set off other types of warheads before they reached their target. In theory it might be used to set off ammunition before the enemy even has a chance to fire. "The capabilities are not limited to improvised devices," Lee Mastroianni, program manager at the Office of Naval Research (ONR), told Popular Mechanics.

There are many counter-IED devices that work by jamming the command signals to bombs that are triggered by a radio signal. These are collectively known as Counter Radio-controlled Electronic Warfare, or CREW. And there have also been some other technologies, such as the Army's Blow Torch, which use a high-powered beam of microwaves to damage the bomb's electronics. But the new device targets the explosive itself.

In one sense the technology is very old. As far back as 1895, the Indian scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose gave a demonstration in which he ignited gunpowder from a distance with microwaves. (A search on YouTube shows the modern version using gunpowder in a microwave oven—don't try that at home.) In 1924, British inventor Harry Grindell Matthews claimed that he had developed a weapon using the same principle, an antiaircraft ray that could set off explosives and blow up attacking bombers. "Death Ray Matthews" became a popular figure with the press, although he never convinced government scientists that the device worked.

[Right Wing Assault]

Aren’t many IED’s triggered by fine trip-wires and mechanical pressure plates?

Yes, that is why this device goes after the explosive itself.

[Right Wing Assault]

Whatever happened to “Loose lips sinks ships”?

People just love to brag. This gives the other guy a lot of info to use to defeat your technology.

Why not just surprise them and never say a word about it?

The cops (and now even the military) love to tell reporters about how they caught the bad guy and all the mistakes he made and how he could have done it better.

What is wrong with these people??

[Alas Babylon!]

My only concern would be is to how can they aim it at an IED or mine that they don't know is there? On any given dusty desert road, we're talking about millions of square feet. Are we aiming continuously, everywhere? What kind of power generation would that take?

And then when do the environmentalists start complaining about how we're frying the brains of countless innocent mole rats, gophers, ground squirrels, prairie dogs, hibernating toads and turtles, etc, etc? Shouldn't an environmental impact be done? /s

[sonofagun]

I just hope it works and works at a distance.

My bet is the Navy's got it right and the reporter didn't get it quite right, maybe intentionally.

I'm with you on hoping they are successful.

[sonofagun]

And then when do the environmentalists start complaining about how we're frying the brains of countless innocent mole rats, gophers, ground squirrels, prairie dogs, hibernating toads and turtles, etc, etc?

I'd laugh about this, but you are so close to being right it's not laughable.

[wildbill]

The first thing that crossed my mind as I read the headline was: Why is the Navy doing research on roadside bombs? How may IEDs does a carrier or cruiser encounter in the course of a war cruise?

Then, of course, I recognized that our Marines are usually deployed on land and are part of the Navy—although some would dispute that. :-)

Whatever the source or reason, good job from our scientists on finding a solution to the terrorist’s favorite weapon.

[indthkr]

counter-IED technology bump

[Vaduz]

Wonder if the Office of Naval Research got the idea from crooks that use frequency scanners to open garage doors?.

[airborne]

What kind of idiots would reveal this if it could be?

The muslim-loving, socialist kind.

[airborne]

What kind of idiots would reveal this if it could be?

The muslim-loving, socialist kind.

[airborne]

sorry for the double post

[Erasmus]

The technology at the center of most of these devices is the ironically-named Marx generator, after the German physicist Erwin Marx.

I’ve done a little work with these beasts, at a small company that had a plant way out in the stix. That way, when they had a little accident, there would be minimal collateral damage (I would joke).

[Erasmus]

do these people think wrapping the IED in a metal casing to block radio waves (tin foil? wire mesh?) would be beyond the capability of the enemy?

All remotely detonated IEDs to date are triggered by wires or wireless means (e.g., cellphones). This makes them vulnerable to the high-field focussed microwaves that the main types of defensive detonators employ.

BTW, there are ways to make remotely-triggered IEDs immune to remote defensive detonation. (I'm not talking!) But these means are somewhat beyond the bad guy's present-day technical sophistication.

[Erasmus]

There is a class of defensive system that can disrupt the RF-triggered type of IED (e.g., by use of cellphones).

This type of system can’t explode an IED, but it can prevent the bad guys from detonating it when the system is nearby and in proper operation.

[Patton@Bastogne]

because the whole “news” story is a deliberate leak ... it’s patently false