Real E.F.P.: Pocket-Sized Tank Killer

The pictures released last week of Iraqi high-tech explosives surprised me. These special 'superbombs' that have caused so many US casualties -- they look like they had been assembled in someone's garage.

These bombs belong to a class known as EFP --'Explosively Formed Projectile' or 'Explosively Formed Penetrator,' depending on who you're talking to. They compress a metal liner into a slug and fire it at the target some distance away.

The picture shows what a real EFP munition looks like. This is M2 Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition (SLAM). It's small enough to put in your pocket and weighs a couple of pounds.

This version has been used by US Special Forces for the last 15 years or so. As GlobalSecurity.org describes it, SLAM is versatile, too:

It will be used to support hit-and-run, ambush, and harassing, and urban warface missions. SLAM will also be employed by Light Combat Engineers and Rangers where missions warrant the use of such a device....SLAM is lightweight, lethal, easily emplaced, and can be carried in the quantity necessary to neutralize a broad range of targets.

Different modes allow SLAM to be triggered by the heat or magnetic signature of a passing vehicle or by a timer -- or it can be set off by a human operator. It can be emplaced in seconds and spits out a lethal slug which can punch through 40mm of steel armor at a range of 25 feet. You can leave it on the ground covered in dirt to attack a vehicle's belly, or conceal it beside a road for side attack.

No doubt the Russians and Chinese have their own versions of SLAM, and these have probably been copied too. So you might expect a rougher, cheaper copy to appear in Iraq if it was supplied from the outside.

But as has been observed here, anyone can make crude and simple EFP munitions in a basic workshop. All you need is a lump of plastic explosive and a piece of copper. Shape the copper into a saucer, put the explosive under it, and you're there. Obviously this will be a lot less efficient, accurate and reliable than something like SLAM (optimal design of the the metal 'lens' is an art requiring a lot of computer power), but you can compensate by making it ten times bigger if you need to.

Maybe the insurgents should be given some credit for being able to build their own gear, or maybe there's more intelligence we don't know. But if EFP mines were being supplied by an outside source, you might expect to see somethng a lot slicker.

UPDATE 11:37: Speaking of surprises, Centcom commander Adm. Fox Fallon doesn't agree that the Iranian government has been supplying Iraq's EFPs. He's not alone. Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace, on the other hand, seemed to back away from his previous, doubting statements -- at least a little. More here.

UPDATE 01:20: The bombs aren't the only issue, of course. According to the Telegraph, Iranian-supplied sniper rifles are also making their way into Iraq.

UPDATE 02:24: Bush has no doubt.

UPDATE 15/02/07: Steyr, the Austrian makers of those .50 cal sniper rifles say there's no proof they came from Iran - and that they might not even be Steyr-made rifles at all.

-- David Hambling

Nazi Roots for Iraq Super-Bombs

The debate these days is all about whether or not Tehran is supplying Iraq's armor-piercing bombs. But the roots of these explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, goes all the way back to Hitler-era Germany, the Yorkshire Ranter notes. Military historian Larry Grupp explains.

Dr. Hubert Schardin was definitely not a Nazi. Nevertheless, he stood stiffly at attention in full Luftwaffe dress uniform at Gestapo headquarters in Budapest, Hungary. It was the spring of 1944 and Schardin, a brilliant German explosives physicist, needed assistance. Under direct orders from Adolf Hitler to develop new superweapons, he needed the Gestapo's help to locate a famous but reclusive Hungarian colonel named Misznay who could provide detailed information regarding the complex physics involved in shaped charge explosives.

Colonel Misznay was, by all historical indicators, so elusive that today we are even uncertain what his real first name was. In all probability, Misznay was either a double or perhaps even a triple agent. After World War II, he dropped out of sight in the Eastern Bloc. Yet his last name lives on as a result of a special explosive phenomenon he identified, called the Misznay-Schardin effect -- a phenomenon that recognizes that fragments can be thrown from the face of an explosive charge in a predictable pattern, much like a projectile from a rifle barrel.

It's that effect which forms the heart of the EFP's deadly power. These Pentagon documents. , obtained by ABC News, give the best public run-down I've seen so far on how lethal these bombs have been.

(Big ups: AT)

Deadly Bombs' Long, Winding Trail

The U.S. government's claim yesterday, that the Iranians are supplying weapons to Iraqi militants, was met with a huge amount of skepticism -- and with good reason, given the Administration's lousy intel-interpreting track record, and the strange conditions of Sunday's presentation. (More on that, in a second.) But, for what it's worth, Defense Tech has been hearing about these weapons -- especially the "explosively-formed projectiles," or EFPs -- for the last eighteen months. Many of the government's assertions track, at least loosely, to what we've heard.

Soldiers in Iraq were already encountering EFPs -- and the closely-related "shaped-charges" -- back in the summer of '05, when I visited the country.

In the garden, there's a seemingly innocuous copper cylinder, concave on one end, about the size of a gallon of paint. It's called an explosively formed projectile, or EFP, and when it detonates, the concave end blows outward and melts into a bullet-shaped fragment that slices through armor and flesh. "Ten days ago, one of these sons-of-bitches took out an arm of a Humvee driver and both his legs," says Captain Greg Hirschey, the 717th's commander. "I get shivers up my spine every time I see one."

Back then, it was commonly assumed that the EFP-makers were getting some over-the-border help. After all, Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas have been using the weapons against Israeli tanks for some time.

A few months later, David Axe caught word of a particularly nasty EFP in Anbar province: infrared "tripwire-activated IEDs disguised as rocks and apparently employing shaped-charge warheads." That sounds almost exactly like the "Fully Operational, Camouflaged Passive Infrared EFP" that the government, in its Iran presentation, said was found in the Basra area, last May.

Still, does that mean there's a direct, tight connection between the Iranian government and the Iraqi bombers? Terrorists -- especially terrorist bomb-makers -- share best practices, from Colombia to Spain to Lebanon to Iraq. So it's not surprising to see one group's methods mimicked somewhere else. Take those infrared tripwires: they were first used by the Irish Republican Army. And I don't think we're about to send a carrier group to the Celtic Sea.

What's more, when Iranian EFPs were first spotted in Iraq, the bombs were in the hands of Sunni insurgents. At the time, that "seem[ed] to suggest a new and unusual area of cooperation between Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis to drive American forces out - a possibility that the commanders said they could make little sense of, given the increasing violence between the sects in Iraq." But now, this looks like terror-makers sharing tricks of the trade, rather some grand, ecumenical alliance.

Or, as Kevin Drum notes, Iran could just be trying to stoke chaos on all sides. "If I were in charge of Iran, it's probably what I'd be doing," he writes. And there's more than just the EFPs to tie Tehran to the conflict in Iraq. Iranian TNT and newly-minted mortars were also trotted out in the American presentation. "The evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq," McClatchy notes, "is far more compelling than much of the administration's pre-war intelligence about Iraq."
That said, if the case was ironclad, the administration wouldn't be resorting to silly maneuvers like these when it made its case for Iran's involvement:

The officials said they would speak only on the condition of anonymity, so the explosives expert and the analyst, who would normally not speak to the news media, could provide information directly. The analyst's exact title and full name were not revealed to reporters. The officials released a PowerPoint presentation including photographs of the weaponry, but did not allow media representatives to record, photograph or videotape the briefing or the materials on display.

Too much is riding on this evidence for such chicanery. Make the case cleanly, guys. Or don't make it at all.

UPDATE 5:11 PM: As benjoya notes in the comments to a previous post, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace doesn't agree with the administration's assessment.

UPDATE 5:36 PM: Be sure to read Newsweek's cover story, too. But be ready to wince.

Worst. Bomb Squad. Ever.

It takes most people more than a year to graduate from the the U.S. military's explosive ordnance disposal school. With good reason: bombs are beyond dangerous, and defusing them is a whole lot more complicated than "pulling the red wire."

Which is why I cringe every time I hear about some newbie trying to play bomb squad hero. This NPR story, of a beyond-incompetent Iraqi EOD team, has to be the most cringe-worthy case I've heard yet. Because the only thing dumber than randomly shooting at a bomb is randomly kicking it and tossing it around.

Someone, stop these fools, before they get themselves killed.

...an Iraqi explosives team are on the case.

The Iraqi police start shooting at the potential bomb, hoping to set it off. But to no avail. The convoy continues to sit and wait. An hour passes. As Sgt. Lord watches, the Iraqi police move closer to the suspected bomb.

In this case, the first IED turns out to be a fake. To the surprise of the American soldiers, this emboldens the Iraqi police who are now focusing on the second suspected bomb.

"Oh, he kicked it," says an American soldier watching.

"The second one must have been safe," Lord says, "because they went over to it, kicked it over, and then threw it across the road. Ay yi yi."

An hour and a half after first stopping, the convoy moves on. (emphasis mine)

Navy's Deadly New Darts

This is a new piece of Navy hardware: a modified satellite-guided bomb, releasing thousands of darts, each carrying a payload of a powerful chemical called DETA. It sounds fearsome, but it's a new countermine technology for taking out mines in the surf zone which I describe in New Scientist here.

One of the interesting features is the .50-caliber Venom dart, which hits at relatively low velocity, but can still go through ten to twelve feet of water or two feet of stand and retain its effectiveness. The secret is in the blunt nose: it’s another one of those cavitating designs, a relative of the Russian Shkval and its Iranian cousin that caused so much stir last year. These form a bubble around themselves to reduce water friction, and as a result the Venom dart goes way deeper than a conventional design.

Perhaps more significant is how effective it is against sand – making it a kind of miniature version of Lockheed’s bunker-busting Cavity Penetrator I described in 2005. However, the big difference is that sand can act as a fluid, whereas hard rock – which the Lockheed design is supposed to glide through at high speed - is another matter. My suspicion is that this approach will not work well in solids, and we will see if Lockheed can make good on their claims of increasing penetration thriough rock by a facot of five or more.

The Office of Naval Research design releases the cloud of darts from a thousand feet or so, but they all impact in an area just sixty feet across. That in itself is an indication of the level of precision guidance which is now possible with this technique – one which might be adapated for a other munitions attacking small targets without collateral damage.

The other interesting thing about the Venom dart is this idea of neutralizing ordnance by chemicals means. Of course it’s been tried before, but in this case there seems to be a genuinely effective means of delivering it from a safe stand-off distance. It would not take too much brilliance to design a hand-held launcher for the darts, a useful option for quickly and reliably dealing with mines and IEDs without having to get close to them.

-- David Hambling

E.O.D. Olympics

The Navy command responsible for testing bomb-disposal tactics and equipment for the entire U.S. military recently has hosted its first annual "Explosive Ordnance Disposal Top Tech Challenge," a three-day slate of competitions for Navy bomb squads, as I report over at Military.com:

EOD Training and Evaluation Unit Two, part of Naval Expeditionary Combat Command headquartered at this facility near Virginia Beach in southern Virginia, in November welcomed five two-man teams from Navy bases around the world, according to the unit's skipper, Commander Tom Smith, 42.

"It's an absolute uber-challenge," Smith says of the competition, going on to describe grueling events including booby-trap defusing, rappelling, land navigation and a "limpet mine" challenge where bomb technicians must dive into a "cold lake on a cold morning" to find and disable a replica of the kinds of mines terrorists might attach to the bottom of a ship.

"We threw the kitchen sink at them," Smith laughs.

This year, an EOD team from Sigonella, Italy took top honors. Calling the competition a success, Smith adds that his unit is already planning for next years. He says the 2007 Challenge will involve as many as a dozen teams.

Read on.

--David Axe

P.S. -- Slate has a sweet roundup of Iraq war comics that includes my book WAR FIX as well as cool entries from Brian Wood (DMZ) and Joe Sacco (WAR JUNKIE). Check it out.

New High for I.E.D.s

"US troops in Iraq are dying in roadside bombings at a higher rate than any period since the war began," the Boston Globe reports. "But commanders still have no effective means to monitor the deadliest routes for patrols."

Military deaths from roadside bombs have hit an all-time high in recent months: In October, 53 US troops died from improvised explosive devices, while in November, 49 troop deaths were blamed on so-called IEDs -- the second and third highest monthly tolls of the war, official statistics and casualty reports show...

The Joint IED Defeat Organization, which had been hailed as the "Manhattan Project" of the roadside bomb problem, "has been a disaster," said Ed O'Connell, a counter-insurgency specialist at the government-funded Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., who has advised US commanders in Iraq.

For its part, the organization claims some progress. They say that the percentage of bombs that are disarmed or detonated before they can kill or maim has remained "stable and consistent" over the past 18 months, and they say there are now fewer casualties per IED attack...

But officials acknowledged that the number of roadside bombings has "risen dramatically over the last two years," though they would not provide statistics.

That increase has confounded the military and raised questions about whether gathering intelligence on the bombers should be the office's top priority... [T]he IED office told the Globe that it spends 63 percent of its budget on ways to "defeat the device," while only 30 percent goes to attacking "the network" that creates and plants the bombs. The rest of its budget is spent on new training methods for US troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But military specialists say that the Pentagon needs to pay more attention to dissecting the "kill chain" -- the source of the bomb components, who made the bomb, and who planted it.

"We can't even detect their explosives," said Loren Thompson , a military specialist at the Lexington Institution, an Arlington, Va., think tank that supports strong military preparedness. "We don't have the resources to police or survey every road. The IED problem is a case study of how military transformation has failed.

"It sounds like a threat where good intelligence and good surveillance would make a big difference," [h]e said. "But we don't seem to be able to develop those things."

UPDATE 4:40 PM: This seems like a smart, and long-overdue, move.

Recon Planes vs. I.E.D.s

Since the Iraq insurgency began, the U.S. Air Force has been looking for ways to use its planes to fight roadside bombs. Electronic warriors like the EC-130H Compass Call jam frequencies used to set off explosives. Drones patrol highways, looking for new, suspicious mounds along the road. Sometimes they even take out the bomb-planters.

Inside Defense reveals another Air Force tactic: Using ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft "to help coalition units round up insurgent cells believed to manufacture lethal improvised explosive devices."

Military officials -- working backward using surveillance video -- were able to successfully trace IED placers’ moves using targeting pods and ISR aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), Lt. Col. Clint Hinote said during a Nov. 21 telephone interview...

[T]he Air Force has used its surveillance assets to find insurgent IED makers, as opposed to solely working to find or disarm the deadly devices, Hinote said...

“You can have a security camera in the sky,” he said. “We actually have aircraft that have that capability of just taking shots of what’s going on.”

After IEDs detonate in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, Air Force ISR officials begin marking tapes of radar sweeps in an attempt to pinpoint the explosion, he said. They then essentially rewind the tapes, trying to discover any movements in the specific area prior to the blast.

“Maybe you can find the car that was involved and backtrack it to a certain house,” Hinote said. “We’ve got several ISR assets that right now are working on this backtracking plan.

“That’s actually led to a couple of good successes where we’ve rounded up some IED cells,” he added.

The ultimate goal is to track the IED maker to a bomb-making equipment storage location -- “and then even further back,” Hinote said.

Better Bomb-Sniffers?

Terrorists and insurgents still love things that go boom. So it's no surprise that the Defense Department is looking for smarter, more accurate ways to detect explosives. Here are a few research contracts Darpa, the Pentagon's bleeding-edge science agency, recently handed out, to build better bomb-sniffers:

EIC LABORATORIES, INC.
111 Downey Street
Norwood, MA 02062
Phone: (781) 769-9450
PI: Jane Bertone
Topic#: DARPA 06-022
Title: Explosives Detection in Residential Building Ventilation Systems

Abstract: One approach to locating illicit bomb factories in Iraq and Afghanistan is analytical monitoring within the ventilation systems of suspect residential buildings. We are proposing a multiple sensor analyzer that sequentially interrogates individual vents or ducts in such buildings and produces fingerprints characteristic of present target substances. The basic premise of this proposal is to locate sensor probes in key ducts or vents and connect them with fiber cabling to a spectral analyzer located in the attic or roof of the building. This setup would monitor a number of different locations within the building with emission of a wireless alarm report to a regional Tactical Operations Center from all online sensors every 10 to 15 minutes. We will achieve reproducible and selective detection of explosives using novel self-assembled structures that create an inherently uniform pattern, leading to rapid, reproducible manufacturing. The specific instrument we propose to analyze the sensors is a field portable spectrograph, with accompanying fiber optic probes, coupled to an accessory containing the sensing elements. Phase I work will focus on the demonstration of reproducible detection of airborne explosives using the sensors in the presence of potentially confusing interfering substances. The Phase II program will focus on quantifying the extent of fouling of the sensors due to long-term exposure to building air, developing a fieldable self-contained and powered instrument including multiplexed probes and wireless communication, and testing the sensors in mock ventilation systems.

LYNNTECH, INC.
7607 Eastmark Drive, Suite 102
College Station, TX 77840
Phone: (979) 693-0017
PI: Anjal Sharma
Topic#: DARPA 06-022
Title: Inexpensive TSP Based Reagentless Explosive Detector

Abstract: It has become imperative to counter the escalating threat of improvised explosive device attacks on our armed forces personnel deployed in foreign locations by seeking out and neutralizing local terrorist operated bomb making factories. Such factories are typically located in apartment buildings or other large dwellings, where the level of out-gassed explosive marker vapors is so small and buried within numerous confusers such as common chemicals that current detectors cannot be utilized to aid in their location. Therefore, Lynntech proposes to address this critical DOD need by fabricating three novel TSP based colorimetric sensor elements each selective for DNT, TNB and picrate, and incorporating these into an automated bench scale detector to demonstrate our capability to reagentlessly detect and quantify trace vapor phase explosives markers in the presence of common confusers such as household chemicals and matches. During Phase II, we will fabricate additional selective TSP sensor elements for other molecular explosives markers encompassing groups A through D and integrate these into a prototype compact inexpensive explosives detection device which may be placed in the HVAC system of apartment buildings. The device will be tested for reliable operation with low false positives, multiplex-ability and wireless control during Phase II.

MICROSTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
604 West Evergreen
Vancouver, WA 98660
Phone: (360) 694-3704
PI: Joseph Birmingham
Topic#: DARPA 06-022
Title: Low Cost Distributed Explosive Detection Device

Abstract: Automated vapor sampling detectors could potentially provide a detection capability for high vapor pressure explosives such as nitroglycerine (NG). However, for materials such as HMX and RDX, the equilibrium vapor pressures are at least four orders of magnitude lower than conventional trinitro-toluene (TNT) explosives, making detection based on sampling of airborne vapor difficult for all of the explosives without concentration. MicroStructure Technologies (MicroST) has undertaken a mission to develop small, compact, microstructured array detectors for explosive vapors (both nitrogen and peroxide-based materials). The upstream micropillars on the microstructured array have a high surface area and the vapors are adsorbed. The laser energy is coupled by fiber optic into the microarray to desorb a concentrated pulse of concentrated explosive vapor. A Microstructured Array Sampler (MAS) with an inorganic polymer coating as a sensing element to detect the concentrated vapors. The use of the inorganic polymers for explosive detection on an air-sampling microarray for confirmation is innovative. The key innovation of the proposed approach is to use a chip-based laser to selectively desorb a concentrated energetic sample onto sensing polymers coated onto a microarray. Lastly, the alarm signal from the microarray is sent wirelessly to reveal the type of explosive detected.

Terrorists Planned Fuel-Air Attack

A while back –- March ‘04 -- I noted the risk from terrorists using thermobaric or fuel-air explosives. This type of blast is much more effective at destroying buildings from the inside than normal (‘condensed’) explosives. One factor is the greater energy release from explosive mix that takes oxygen from the air, but the other is the sustained impulse that a fuel-air blast produces. Many structures rely on gravity for their structural strength -– arches are a good example –- or have very limited ability to withstand a horizontal load. A fuel-air blast has long enough duration to cause such structures to lose their integrity, and basically they just fall apart.

Terrorists have known about these weapons for some time; five years ago the IRA were reported to be collaborating with FARC in Colombia to develop a fuel-air device, with every possibility that the ‘recipe’ would be shared with other groups.

Last month the reporting restrictions were lifted on the trial in Britain of terror suspect Dhiren Barot. His key plan was reportedly called the ‘Gas Limos Project’ in which limousines packed with cylinders of propane and explosives were to be placed in car parks underneath crowded buildings. Barot has pleaded guilty to the charges against him.

What’s interesting here is the use of gas cylinders as well as normal explosives. The 1993 plot to blow up the World Trade Center using 1300 lbs of a urea/nitric acid composition failed. A fuel-air device might be much more effective. (And indeed, out there on the fringe there really are people who think the WTC was destroyed by such devices ) However it has to be said that engineering an effective fuel-air blast is a major technical challenge. Simply sticking some explosives around a propane tank might get you an impressive fireball but it would not necessarily generate much of a blast –- this requires the gas and air to be thoroughly mixed in exactly the correct ratio over a large volume and then ignited correctly.

Meanwhile fiction struggles to catch up -- BBC TV series Spooks recently featured an episode with terrorists attempting to use a thermobaric bomb in London.

The technology may be new, but the general idea goes way back. A group of religious fanatics aimed to destroy the British Houses of Parliament and wipe out the entire government on November 5th, 1605. The blast was to be provided by 36 barrels of gunpowder stowed in the cellars below the House. The plot was betrayed, but date is marked annually with bonfires and fireworks in England –- “Remember, remember the 5th of November”

--David Hambling

WaPo Digs for Bombs

This Washington Post Magazine story, on "The Bomb Squad," is one of the best reads you'll get in the mainstream press on the reality of the counter-bomb fight in Iraq.

There's only one, teeny-tiny problem with the piece: It's not really about a "bomb squad," or explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) unit, at all. Nobody is asked to defuse any bombs. Instead, the story centers around what appears to be a group of combat engineers -- EOD's blood rivals. These guys go combing roads for improvised explosives and, if they have any brains at all, call in EOD once the bombs are found.

In either case, the story is well worth checking out. Here's a snippet:

And this is where the whole expedition turns . . . well, into a "Wizard of Oz" moment for me. Because as I peer through the haze of the Iraqi noon, the Buffalo's claw ponderously raking the grass beside the road, I realize that the heart of the Pentagon's program for defeating IEDs [improvised explosive devices] is: 1) buy some armored trucks with big windows; 2) send young soldiers out to drive up next to bombs; 3) investigate with a phone truck [which is what the author says the Buffalo reminds him of].

As Tate points out later: "I've seen tanks destroyed. I've seen Bradleys destroyed . . . There's only so much armor can do."

Fortunately, this particular wired rock turns out to be an irrigation pump. After another hour or so, I'm dropped off at a nearby patrol base.

Fifteen minutes later, Tate's RG-31 nearly runs over an IED.

McGorvin -- dubbed "the Jedi master" by his fellow soldiers for his ability to, as they put it, "detect ordnance" -- tells me about it the next day as he fidgets on a torn couch behind the TOC. He explains that he sensed the bomb a mile before he reached it -- noticing first the grinning face of a taxi driver who squatted down behind his cab to key a Motorola phone. A few minutes later as the convoy rumbled through a small town, McGorvin felt it again outside a cluster of mud wattle shacks, their yards suspiciously empty.

Then, all at once, his RG-31 passed a mound of dirt with a cone of rusty metal showing through its side. McGorvin's gaze locked on a sliver of blue plastic tucked behind the mound. "I got something!" he yelled. "I don't know what it is, but it's got a cellphone on it!"

The RG-31's armor wouldn't protect McGorvin standing in his gunner's nest, so, as radios barked and the convoy scattered, he tucked his thighs against his chest and squatted.

"McGorvin -- good looking," Tate shouted as their truck finally jolted to a stop outside the bomb's blast radius.

WWI Mine-Mashers to Iraq

The armed services are spending billions and billions to figure out fancy new ways to stop improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. But the latest trick is an oldie -- dating back to World War I -- and couldn't be less high tech.

The contraptions are called mine rollers -- sets of wheels mounted in front of a vehicle, basically. When they roll over a mine or a pressure-activated IED, the wheels trigger the bomb. Because the vehicle is some distance behind the rollers, much of the bomb blast wave does not reach the vehicle, dramatically reducing the damage. And the vehicle lives to see another day. The Marine Corps just bought 150 sets from General Dynamics, according to Defense Industry Daily.

This idea sounds glaringly obvious. So you might wonder why it took the military more than 3 years to put the rollers up. In fact, the idea of a mine roller originated in 1918, to help nascent tanks deal with the anti-tank mines of that era. Many of the earliest IEDs in Iraq were built with anti-tank mines. Why didn't anybody in the Army Engineer School, for instance, make the connection?

Chalk some of it up to military bureaucracy. When it comes to mine-clearance, combat engineers and explosive ordnance disposal techs sometimes have overlapping lines of responsibility. (Which helps fuel an often-bitter rivalry.) At times, who exactly is supposed to develop bomb- and mine-fighting gear has been a blurry question, as well. The Counter-IED Task Force is now supposed to be in charge. But we'll see.

There are several legitimate concerns with the mine rollers that I am not going to mention here. However, my answer to these concerns are: If the insurgents do that, it would make their IEDs more detectable. Moreover, the standoff will interfere with aiming.

A friend and I were working on a similar concept, a Humvee roller attachment. However, we could not find a machinist to build our prototype. Now that I am deployed, we could not continue our commercial venture. One feature of our design was that it was telescoping, meaning that we can vary the distance of the rollers to the vehicle. We can change the distance to respond to changes in IED tactics. Maybe General Dynamics will incorporate the feature into their next run of mine rollers, too.

-- Jimmy Wu

Truck Bomb: Too Easy

Yikes...

Two undercover NYPD cops in a sting operation used $7,000 and the Internet to build a truck bomb big enough to blow up a skyscraper, officials revealed yesterday.

In what was dubbed "Operation Kaboom," every purchase the cops made was legal - and aroused little suspicion - even driving their simulated truck bomb throughout the city.

Although the two cops had no specialized knowledge of bomb-making, they were able manufacture an explosive more powerful than the one used in the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

"We did it with no difficulty whatsoever," said [Richard] Falkenrath, the NYPD's top anti-terror cop, who testified at a congressional hearing yesterday and disclosed the making of the bomb. When the operation was complete, the officers drove the simulated bomb around the city's bridges and tunnels, sources said. They were not detected.
There is one, tiny bit of good news in this otherwise skin-crawling story: When the cops tried to buy 2,450 pounds of ammonium nitrate in upstate Rensselaer County, it "aroused some suspicion from the owner of the distribution plant, who contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms following the purchase. The ATF launched an investigation, but the NYPD notified them that it was an undercover operation."

Iraqi TV Ad: Stop Your Suicide Bombing

Coming soon to Iraqi TV: million-dollar, sixty-second, public service announcements, featuring "exploding cars, flying Matrix-style stuntmen and... messages like 'Don't Suicide Bomb.'"

Newsweek reports from "an industrial block in downtown LA [turned] into a busy Baghdad square" -- the scene for a 120-camera shoot, designed to capture simulated carnage in the "frozen-in-time feeling" of "The Matrix." The spot is supposed to persuade wannabe insurgents to put down their IEDs. Never mind the fact that "the cost of owning a TV is often prohibitive for the average Iraqi."

At least 60 extras dressed in hijabs, kaffiyehs and polyester-wool blend slacks were herded onto the set to simulate an average shopping day. But there was hardly any Arabic spoken on this Baghdad street. Spanish, Punjabi and even Italian could be heard as extras gathered around the Kraft services table to munch on chips and guacamole. When asked if he is Iraqi, Bidkar Ramos, an extra on the set, laughs. "No, I'm Chinese and Mexican,” he says. “Like most of these people, I'm just a look-alike."

Onlookers were later asked to stand back as the pyrotechnic crew blew up a poor old Yugo coupe and stunt men and women, padded under their Arab garb, were thrust into the air with ropes and pulleys to simulate the impact of a bomb exploding...

This pricey and unorthodox attempt to subdue the violence is backed by a group of mystery donors. "I call them an independent, non-governmental group of scholars, non political people," says Plotkin. "Some may live in Iraq, some may live abroad. For a variety of different reasons—from safety concerns to wanting the focus to remain on the issue itself, they decided to remain anonymous."

(Big ups: PRK)

Enter the BomBot

One of the nice things about being editor of Defense Tech is that people occasionally show up at your apartment with military robots. Take last Friday, for example, when Bradley DeRoos and Alex Gizis dragged one of their brand-new BomBots into my dining room.

600 of the machines have already shipped to troops in Iraq. Another 1800 are being built. And if the BomBots look more like toy trucks than military-grade hardware well, there's a reason for that. That's exactly what the things are.

Gizis spent several years designing bad-ass digital controllers for RC cars -- the fastest of their kind, working in the 2.4 GHz band. They transmit drivers' orders in a hurry. And the controllers send all kinds of telemetry data back, like engine temperature and battery strength.

It all worked so well, Gizis figured the military might be interested in some cheap, remote-controlled bomb-spotters. The current crop of ordinance-disposal robots cost $100,000 or more, he knew. Even the smaller, dumbed-down Marcbots, used on route patrol, can run about $15,000 each. Maybe, Gizis thought, he could come up with something cheaper.

So Gizis started playing around with Traxxas E-maxx RC trucks, to see if they could do the job. At the same time, some Air Force Research Laboratory engineers (working with the Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division) were also fiddling with E-maxxes, to handle the same duties. But they couldn't get the radios to work.

Eventually, everyone was brought together by the National Center for Defense Robotics. And within a couple of months, the first BomBots were being sent off to Iraq for testing.

At 15 pounds, 22 inches high, the miniature truck isn't exactly bomb-proof. It doesn't have to be be. At $5,000 a pop -- dirt cheap, by military standards -- the bot becomes a sound investment even if it's blown sky-high after the fourth or fifth use. You could even imagine the BomBots keeping up with Humvees on route patrol, since the machines have a top speed of 35 miles per hour and a range of 1500 feet.

Now, Gizis claims the trucks are also going to be used for bomb disposal, as well as bomb spotting. And that's a little harder to imagine -- despite the nifty, six-inch loading bay, big enough to dump off a C4 brick. EOD techs tend to be pretty particular about where they place their bang. The BomBots don't have the dexterity to pull off much precision. But for a souped-up RC truck, the machines are pretty cool.

Who's that at the door now, I wonder?

Contact Bombs in Iraq

Iraqi insurgents are trying out a new tactic. "The newest method of triggering [an improvised explosive] is a contact strip laid across part of the pavement," says Fox News' Rick Leventhal, who's in Iraq.

"It can be inside plastic tubing. When a tire hits it and the wires inside make contact — boom. This method doesn't require the cowards to be on scene, but it's totally random. Any local on the road could be the next victim."

iRobots Sell, But Who's Buying?

Someone must be using them, I guess. Otherwise, why would Naval Sea Systems Command buy another $26 million worth of iRobot's explosive-disposal machines? But I've never met a bomb squad technician who actually bothered with one of the things. Too flimsy, they all say. Too hard to operate.

The Baghdad Bomb Squad used their iRobots to decorate their shop. Not far away, at the U.S. military's central robot depot for Iraq, the iRobots sat on shelves, serenely gathering dust, while Foster-Miller's Talon robots would come back, scarred and in pieces, after being chewed up by a bomb.

Foster-Miller, though, doesn't have the PR megaphone that iRobot does. It doesn't have a cute, little household machine to go along with its battlefield models. And when you go to military trade shows, you only see Foster-Miller sporadically. iRobot always seems to have a booth. Maybe there's a connection, somewhere in there, to that big sale?

(Big ups: JQP)

UPDATE 1:50 PM: Of course. I shoulda figured. "Sen. John Kerry Visits iRobot to Congratulate Company on $26 Million U.S. Navy Contract."

Everybody is E.O.D.

A shortage of Explosive Ordnance Disposal experts in Iraq means that engineers and infantry often end up tackling Improvised Explosive Devices themselves.

New equipment including tougher vehicles and simple ground robots make this possible, as I explain in an article in the April National Defense Magazine:

Armored vehicles originally designed to clear mines are used to sweep roads of bombs. Patrols travel inside the protective bubbles of sophisticated radio jammers that intercept the signals that detonate explosives. And engineers are refining the use of small ground robots to identify and destroy IEDs.

Read the entire article here.

-- David Axe

UPDATE 9:49 AM: Noah here. As you can imagine, the guys who spend a year training to become bomb squad technicians aren't exactly thrilled by the newbies who think they handle their jobs, just because of a few new toys. This isn't just a matter of guarding turf (although there is some of that, for sure). There's a pretty major safety issue involved here, too.

Quick example: a group of combat engineers near Baghdad were all fired up about their new, bomb-grabbing Buffalo armored vehicle, which they used to sift through roadside junk piles for IEDs. These guys would dig up an explosive with the Buffalo's spindly claw. And then, they'd be so proud of what they found, they'd want to snap a quick picture of their prize. So they'd use the claw to bring the bomb right up to the Buffalo's cab. And then, the IED would go off. A bad thing, of course. And the kind of thing that happens when folks aren't properly trained in bomb-handling.

UPDATE 10:07 AM: Of course, being an EOD pro doesn't make you bomb-proof. In an incident I barely missed, UK Captain Peter Norton lost a leg and part of an arm to an IED. Yesterday, he was awarded one of the British military's highest honors, the George Cross. Only 21 others have received it since 1945. His citation reads, in part:

"Captain Norton was the second-in-command of the US Combined Explosives Exploitation Cell (CEXC) based in the outskirts of Baghdad. The unit has been in the forefront of counter Improvised Explosive Device (IED) operations and is plays a vital role in the collection and analysis of weapons intelligence.

At 1917 hours on 24 July 2005, a three vehicle patrol from B Company, 2nd Battalion, 121st Regiment of the Georgia National Guard was attacked by a massive command initiated IED in the Al Bayaa district near Baghdad. The ensuing explosion resulted in the complete destruction of a 'Humvee' patrol vehicle and the deaths of four US personnel. Due to the significance of the attack, a team from CEXC, commanded by Captain Norton, was tasked immediately to the scene. On arrival, Captain Norton was faced with a scene of carnage and the inevitable confusion which is present in the aftermath of such an incident. He quickly took charge and ensured the safety of all the coalition forces present. A short while later he was briefed that a possible command wire had been spotted in the vicinity of the explosion site. With a complete understanding of the potential hazard to himself and knowing that the insurgents had used secondary devices before in the particularly dangerous part of Iraq, Captain Norton instructed his team and the US forces present in the area to remain with their vehicle while he alone went forward to confirm whether a command wire IED was present.

A short while later, an explosion occurred and Captain Norton sustained a traumatic amputation of his left leg and suffered serious blast and fragmentation injuries to his right leg, arms and lower abdomen. When his team came forward to render first aid, he was conscious, lucid and most concerned regarding their safety. He had correctly deduced that he had stepped on a victim operated IED and there was a high probability that further devices were present. Before allowing them to render first aid, he instructed his team on which areas were safe and where they could move. Despite having sustained grievous injuries he remained in command and coolly directed the follow-up actions. It is typical of the man that he ignored his injuries and regarded the safety of his men a paramount as they administered life saving first aid to him. It is of note that a further device was found less than ten metres away and rendered safe the following day. Captain Norton's prescience and clear orders in the most difficult circumstances undoubtedly prevented further serious injury or loss of life.

(Big ups: JQP, LB)

I.E.D. Task Force's Growing Pains

Tomorrow's Newsweek has a recap of the IED threat in Iraq that's well worth a read. Most of the elements of Michael Hastings' story will be familiar to regular Defense Tech readers: the article opens with Capt. Greg Hirschey, the head of the Baghdad Bomb Squad, moves quickly to the tragic passing of Staff Sgt. Johnnie Mason, and then goes on to cover Warlock jammers, shaped charges, infrared triggers, and the like. But there are a few, choice, behind-the-scenes tidbits, on the creation of the Pentagon's Joint IED Task Force, that I haven't seen anywhere before:

The civilian leadership of DoD agreed and let it be known that money would be no obstacle. A new Joint IED Task Force was duly convened under Army leadership—and immediately bogged down in bureaucracy. The first meeting was chaired by an Army two-star general and attended by a Navy two-star admiral, many one-star Army and Air Force generals, and "more colonels than you could count," according to a participant who requested anonymity because he was discussing a secret meeting. About an hour and a half was spent discussing the transfer to the Army of four bomb-sniffing dogs belonging to the Air Force. The cost of flying the dogs to Iraq was $35,000, but "at the end of that time, there was not a soul in the room who could say, 'I will give you the money'," a participant recalled. It was a harbinger. "We were hamstrung from the beginning by an inability to actually do anything," said another participant in the meeting. (Pentagon spokesman Whitman says that "our efforts against IEDs grew as the threat grew.")

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was frustrated by the slow progress, according to a knowledgeable official who requested anonymity because he was divulging sensitive matters. Wolfowitz hoped to use interservice rivalry to spur some competition. The Air Force had begun a "Project Eyes" to fly a plane, equipped with sensors, over Iraq looking for buried munitions. The equipment was sensitive—it kept overheating over the desert, forcing the plane to retreat to cooler altitudes—but it showed that hidden caches could be found. Wolfowitz was so fed up with what he saw as the Army's inertia that he asked Air Force Secretary James Roche to brief the rival branch. "Paul wanted to shame the Army into action," says an official involved in the operation who declined to be identified.

UPDATE 03/20/06 2:12 PM: If you squint really, rrrrreeeealllly hard, you can see this site cited in the print edition of the Newsweek story.

The Enemy is Me

Last summer, a U.S. Colonel in Baghdad told me that I was America's enemy, or very close to it. For months, I had been covering the U.S. military's efforts to deal with the threat of IEDs, improvised explosive devices. And my writing, he told me, was going too far -- especially this January 2005 Wired News story, in which I described some of the Pentagon's more exotic attempts to counter these bombs.

None of the material in the story -- the stuff about microwave blasters or radio frequency jammers -- was classified, he admitted. Most of it had been taken from open source materials. And many of the systems were years and years from being fielded. But by bundling it all together, I was doing a "world class job of doing the enemy's research for him, for free." So watch your step, he said, as I went back to my ride-alongs with the Baghdad Bomb Squad -- the American soldiers defusing IEDs in the area.

Today, I hear that the President and the Pentagon's higher-ups are trotting out the same argument. "News coverage of this topic has provided a rich source of information for the enemy, and we inadvertently contribute to our enemies' collection efforts through our responses to media interest," states a draft Defense Department memo, obtained by Inside Defense. "Individual pieces of information, though possibly insignificant taken alone, when aggregated provide robust information about our capabilities and weaknesses."

In other words, Al Qaeda hasn't discovered how to Google, yet. Don't help 'em out.

This was taken to ridiculous extremes yesterday by President Bush, who said:

Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet. We cannot let the enemy know how we're working to defeat him.

Folks, that doesn't pass the laugh test. This technology, Ionatron's Joint IED Neutralizer, hasn't even been shipped to the field -- and may never get there. So insurgents are posting instructions on how to beat a device that they've never seen? Based on a few, vague paragraphs in the L.A. Times? Yeah, right.

After years of relatively small investments, the U.S. is spending several billion dollars of our public money to try to stop roadside bombs. 40 American soldiers are dying every month, because of these IEDs. The public has a right to know how that money is being spent, and how those soldiers are being protected. Period. And this attempt to demonize the media for handmade bombs is just a way to keep folks from asking why more wasn't done sooner to deal with the IED threat.

Does that mean there shouldn't be any secrets in the anti-IED world? Of course not. Operational specifics about key counter-bomb technologies and tactics should be tightly held; otherwise, soldiers can get killed. That's why I kept such details out of my Baghdad Bomb Squad story. That's why David Axe has done the same on his many Iraq trips.

But there's a huge difference between disclosing key details, and not allowing any information out whatsoever about the Iraq war's most important fight. Now, who's the one crossing the line?

I.E.D. Answer: New Roads?

I've spoken to a couple of company commanders in Iraq who say they don't have much of a problem with roadside bombs. The big reason why: they avoid the main streets in their neighborhoods, travelling where their enemies aren't.

Now, the Pentagon is looking to use that technique all over Iraq, according to Inside Defense. "Rather than trying to defeat improvised explosive devices (IEDs) head-on with new technologies and tactics, the Defense Department is looking to... construct new roads for supply convoys that simply bypass densely populated, high-threat areas."

The Army is seeking $167 million in military construction funds as part of the Pentagon's soon-to-be detailed $65.3 billion supplemental spending request for fiscal year 2006 to pave roads capable of supporting two-way traffic, complete with shoulders, drainage structures and interchanges to connect with existing supply routes, according to a draft version of the request.

“Failure to provide these routes will result in continued exposure of U.S. and coalition forces as well as Iraqi non-combatants to unacceptable insurgent threats to include IED and vehicle borne IED and direct fire exposure,” states the draft budget document obtained by InsideDefense.com and set to be delivered to Congress soon....

There have been approximately 28,000 IED incidents in Iraq between April 2003 and November 2005, according to Jan. 24 briefing slides prepared by Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Iraq, Behind the Bombs

We read all the time about the American military effort to stop handmade bombs in Iraq. But we don't know much about the insurgents who build and plant them. Greg Grant, who just got back from Iraq, has one of the most detailed looks yet into the IED supply chain. Here's a snippet. But be sure to read the whole story, in this month's Defense Technology International.

According to U.S. military intelligence, more than 100 cells operate in Iraq. Most limit attacks to roadways and neighborhoods near where the cell members live. Cells advertise their technical skills on the Internet, posting streaming video of IED attacks to jihadist web sites. The most highly skilled IED cells operate as a package and hire themselves out to the larger insurgent networks on a contract basis, changing affiliations for more money.

While ideology motivates many guerrilla fighters in Iraq, some officers believe the financial motivation behind insurgent attacks has been underestimated. “You get a disaffected guy who is making $100 a month and you tell him go place this IED and I’ll give you $300, and if you blow something up we’ll give you a $700 bonus, and that’s a pretty dramatic reward,” says Army Lt. Col. Shawn Weed, a military intelligence officer in Baghdad…

“Payday is the beginning of the month,” says Army Lt. Col. Ross Brown, who commands a cavalry squadron in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (3ACR) operating south of Baghdad. “We can track it on a calendar; he’s buying IEDs on this date, then he’s building them, now he’s putting them out on the roads, then they’re blowing up and then he’s out of money and munitions and he starts over...”

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was saturated with weapons plants and munitions depots. U.S. intelligence indicates that after the regime fell, former officials moved large quantities of munitions into pre-selected caches, many south of Baghdad, from which insurgents draw explosives for IEDs. Army Capt. Ben Crombe, an intelligence officer in 3ACR, says there is a single supplier for many of these cells.

The suppliers provide explosive material to locations across the capital. Components are assembled at well-concealed bomb factories and moved from areas likely to be searched by American patrols to holding areas until the device is emplaced. Because of the frequency of U.S. raids on suspected insurgent hideouts, IEDs are kept in what the military calls “rolling weapons caches”— cars with false bottoms or trunks loaded with explosives that blend in with the thousands of vehicles on Iraq’s crowded city streets.

Individual cells have a specific signature and follow a pattern, Funk says, such as the time of day they carry out IED attacks and where they place bombs, while different cells have access to different types and sizes of munitions. Most of the bombs are unique in construction because the bomb maker is forced to use materials at hand.

IED Answer: Foot Patrols?

Everybody seems to have an answer to the homemade bomb problem: more cargo flights, more radio frequency jammers, even explosive-spotting lasers.

This story in the current Atlantic has a solution I hadn't seen before. The idea, from Gen. Joseph Votel, who headed the IED task force until recently, is to have troops stop riding through Baghdad or Ramadi on Humvees, and start walking the streets.

The growing use of IEDs is forcing America's military strategists to rethink centuries of military doctrine holding that in warfare, mobility equals dominance. Votel told me that given the success that IEDs have had against America's fleet of motor vehicles, the Pentagon may need to switch to more foot patrols. An intelligence analyst working on the IED problem agreed, saying, "The answer to the IEDs is to leave the vehicles. It's obvious. It's the only choice."

Really? I don't know much about infantry tactics. But I do know a soldier who was killed by a jury-rigged bomb. He was one his feet, not in a Humvee. Same goes for the British explosives specialist who lost limbs to an IED.

But the vulnerability isn't even the big issue. Coverage is. The Army equivalent on the cop walking the beat works fine, if you've got lots and lots of cops in a very small area. In Iraq, there are 150,000 or so soldiers and marines trying to control a place the size of California. That means each patrol has to cover a really wide area -- too wide, really, to walk. Driving is the only way.

Besides, as the Atlantic notes, more foot patrols "would expose U.S. soldiers to other risks, including snipers. And the December detonation of an IED in Fallujah, killing ten Marines on foot patrol, shows that soldiers will remain vulnerable to IEDs whether on foot or behind the wheel."

Next...

Laugh Off Those Bombs

I convoyed to Ramadi with the Army's 46th Engineer Battalion. My driver was a young soldier who'd fought the Mahdi Army in Al Kut two years ago and was back for his second tour. Before SP-ing ("Start Point"), a lieutenant briefed everyone on the latest Improvised Explosive Device threat.

It seems an insurgent cell out here in Al Anbar has been building sophisticated IR tripwire-activated IEDs disguised as rocks and apparently employing shaped-charge warheads -- hardly improvised at all, if you ask me. Three or four of these things have gone off in the last month, inflicting a number of casualties. Normally in a briefing like this the presenter would detail any countermeasures, but this time he just went, "Umm ... " since there are no countermeasures to an IED like that. You can't tell it from another rock and you can't jam it.

This wasn't my first convoy. Nor was it the first time I've heard scary briefings on insurgent super-weapons. Still, I admit I was a little unnerved. But the 46th troopers just grimaced and shrugged. What are you gonna do?

We rolled out two hours late due to a broken-down Humvee. It was a two-hour drive to Ramadi, and my driver and his crew passed the time munching Chips Ahoy cookies and joking on the intercom. They run these missions almost every day against an evolving range of threats. There are only so many precautions they can take; after that's it's up to God. "Inshalla," my Arab friends would say: "God willing." The non-believers in the crowd can take comfort in the knowledge that, statistically, they're highly likely to survive any given mission.

Still – shaped-charge IEDs disguised as rocks?!

--David Axe

"Aerial IED," Part Three

Are insurgents in Iraq making homemade explosives that can "leap into the air" and hit helicopters? A leading general says yes. The Pentagon's anti-IED (improvised explosive device) task force disagrees. And the Secretary of the Army -- well, he's not quite sure either way.

Now, an intelligence source weighs in, telling Defense Tech that the "aerial IED" threat is all hype -- no matter what the general said. "Honest to God, there hasn't been a single anti-helo IED discovered anywhere in Southwest Asia," the source notes. "The bad guys are so successful at downing them with small arms fire they have no incentive to adopt needlessly complex anti-helo mines or IEDs. There might be one or two out there, but we haven't heard anything about it."

I don't know about you, but I had no one idea there were anti-helicopter mines until this whole flap started. Defense Update helps educate me, with a description of this one Bulgarian-made helo-hunter. There are many others.

AHM-200-1... is activated by... acoustic and radar Doppler shift signatures... at a distance of of 100 m... The mine uses two warheads, an explosive formed projectile and augmented by a second TNT bar charge distributing 17kg of steel ball fragments. The mine can be activated for periods up to 30 days. The mine is placed on a stand permitting general orientation of the sensors and charges in the direction of potential threat. The control unit uses a signal processor to process the acoustic signals and determine activation parameters. Activation, neutralization and explosion by Radio control from a range of up to 2,000 meters is optional in model AHM-200-1RC. The mine will explode when attempts for moving, tampering or disassembly during its activation phase.

"Aerial IED" Denied... Kinda, Sorta

It's not every day that the Defense Department goes out of its way to say publicly that a general is full of it. But that's what appears to be going on now.

On Monday, Defense News ran a story by Greg Grant which said that "insurgents are attacking U.S. helicopters in Iraq with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that leap into the air and detonate when an aircraft passes nearby."

The source: Brig. Gen. Edward Sinclair, commander of the Army’s Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Ala.

Almost immediately, there was pushback to Grant's piece. But not to the substance of what he -- and, by extension, Gen. Sinclair -- said. To the fact that such sensitive info was being disclosed. (That kind of thing tends to happen when you're writing about IEDs. I was accused of being an agent of the Iraqi insurgency for this Wired News article on bomb-stopping technologies.)

Now, however, the military is saying those "aerial IEDs" don't exist. That Grant and Gen. Sinclair were basically wrong.

“At this time, we do not know of any incidences of insurgents employing aerial IEDs against U.S. helicopters. No aircraft have been lost to this type of device,” a spokeswoman for the Defense Department task force working to defeat IEDs told Stars and Stripes.

But that attempt to clarify things was almost instantly muddied by Army Secretary Francis Harvey, in an interview with Voice of America.

To my knowledge we, we have not, I don't know if we've seen, we may have seen one of those. But to my knowledge we have not seen a lot of those so far, jumping IEDs.

(Big ups: Haninah Levine)

"Aerial IEDs" Target Copters

In Iraq, it's not uncommon for Americans to fly from the Green Zone in Baghdad to the military headquarters at Camp Victory, just a few miles away. That's the danger handmade bombs along the road represent.

So insurgents are altering their strikes, "attacking U.S. helicopters in Iraq with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that leap into the air and detonate when an aircraft passes nearby," writes Defense News' Greg Grant, who just returned from Iraq.

Insurgents, who place these aerial IEDs along known flight paths, trigger them when American helicopters come along at the typical altitude of just above the rooftops. The devices shoot 50 feet into the air, and a proximity fuze touches off a warhead that sprays metal fragments, said Brig. Gen. Edward Sinclair, commander of the Army’s Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Ala.

The bomb-builders may be obtaining radio-guided proximity fuzes from old Iraqi anti-aircraft and artillery shells and mortar rounds.

Sinclair said these aerial IEDs have been used against multiple U.S. helicopters. He declined to say whether such IEDs had damaged any aircraft.

The new weapon is one way insurgents are taking on Army aircraft, which come under fire between 15 and 20 times a month, Sinclair said. Other methods include small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and advanced shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.

“The enemy is adaptive,” Sinclair said. “They make changes in the way they fight; they respond to new flying tactics.”

The AP is reporting that "a U.S. military helicopter crashed north of the Iraqi capital Monday - the third American chopper to go down in 10 days - killing the two crew members. A resident said he saw the smoke trail of a missile before the aircraft plunged to the ground."

SSG Johnnie Mason, RIP

Staff Sergeant Johnnie Mason was smiling when I met him, a few days after he had dodged death. He was part of an Army bomb squad team in Mahmudiyah, not far from Baghdad. An improvised explosive device, stuffed underneath a set of corpses, detonated just feet away from him in mid-July. Only his kevlar bomb suit -- and a quick duck behind a mound of dirt -- kept him alive.

If Mason was bothered by the experience, he didn't show it. "All I've got is a little short-term memory loss. There are four roads on post -- I keep getting lost," he laughed.

But he had enough wherewithall to get back to work, he promised his commanding officer. Mason eyes grew big, and he cracked a toothy grin, when he got the okay.

I shook my head in wonder at Mason's easy-going bravery then.

Now, I'm cradling my head in my hand, after getting this message from Sergeant Jon Ferraro, from the "Baghdad Bomb Squad."

On 19 December 2005 @ 23:30, my team leader SSG Johnnie V. Mason was killed in the line of duty in Al Mahmudiyah, Iraq. We were working on an IED in the median of a road, when a possible secondary IED was found in our safe area. SSG Johnnie Mason responded immediately to the secondary and took immediate actions on the device. He was trying to safe the device when it detonated...killing him instantly from the explosion (at exactly 23:30). He saved at least 4 soldiers that night who were within feet of the device. SSG Johnnie Mason is a fallen brother. A brother in arms. An EOD brother. A husband to his wife Brook and a father to his 2 step children: Ashley (18) and Adam (16). He will not be forgotten. His loss will not be in vain.

He was my team leader. He was my NCO. He was my best friend. He was my brother. I have never gotten so close to someone in such a short time. I first met Johnnie when I got to Ft.Campbell, KY back in January of this year. I found out he was going to be my team leader for Iraq back in March. Ever since then we have been inseparable and we've had a brothers bond.

We were Team 8 "Jokers". When we rolled out on an incident, everyone knew who we were. Johnnie was a joker. He's the guy that makes everyone laugh and smile. Everyone liked him or loved him. He was always in a good mood and made the best out of every situation. He was cool under pressure and was an amazing team leader. He taught me alot as a person, as an EOD [explosive ordnance disposal] tech...and soon to be husband. We had fun on every incident we ran. We ran safely, as fast as possible, and held high standards as a team. Everywhere we went on post, someone would say hey to Johnnie from the lowest ranking private to the Brigade Commander. Everyone knew him.

I ask that everyone take a moment of silence and pray for his family and friends during this horrible time. I ask God to keep them strong and safe during this time of Christmas. I ask that you forward this to all the EOD techs you know and the friends and loved ones of his.

Thank you and God bless,

SGT Jonathan M. Ferraro
717th Ordnance Company (EOD)

UPDATE 12/22 8:52 AM: More on Johnnie here and here. If you're interested in sending condolences or flowers, e-mail me.

UPDATE 12/25 11:46 AM: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has some choice snippets of Johnnie's battlefield humor. And the Ft. Worth Star Telegram hangs out with Johnnie's Dad.