Army reaches out to industry for mature vehicle-mount IED detection and marking capabilities

[C130]

Army reaches out to industry for mature vehicle-mount IED detection and marking capabilities

FORT BELVOIR, Va., 23 July 2015.U.S. Army researchers are reaching out to industry for fresh IED detectionideas on mature technologies for clearing surface-laid and buriedimprovised explosive devices (IEDs)from roadways and areas of military operations.

Officials of the Fort Belvoir, Va., segment of the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground issued a solicitation Wednesday (W909MY-15-R-F011) for the Route and Area Clearance for Explosive Hazards project. Proposed technologies must be at least at a laboratory prototype stage.

The Army Contracting Command is issuing the solicitation on behalf of the Army Product Manager for Counter Explosive Hazard (PdM CEH). Researchers are interested in IED-detection approaches that are airborne, vehicle-based forward-looking, vehicle-based downward-looking, and combinations of these modes.

Army experts particularly are interested in technologies that can detect IEDs quickly to support high rates of advance along routes. advance along routes.

The intent is to mount IED-detection capabilities to the Husky Mark III vehicle, the Medium Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV) Type II, the Buffalo/Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV) A2, and the RQ 20 PUMA unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

Related: IED hunters adapt to sophisticated threats

Proposed solutions should have the ability to detect surface-laid and shallow-buried, metallic, low-metallic, and non-metallic explosives in a wide range of road surfaces and soil conditions. The probability of detection shall be 95 percent or greater for surface-laid explosive hazards, to include antitank land mines, IED's, unexploded ordnance, and pressure activated trigger mechanisms.

The probability of detection of explosives buried as deep as eight inches should be 90 percent or greater for the same kinds of explosive hazards. Proposed solutions also should be able to mark deep-buried metallic, low-metallic, and non-metallic IEDs. The probability of detection should be 85 percent or greater for IEDs and caches buried as deeply as four feet.

 

[C130]

I wonder what technology and techniques can be used to meet the Army requirements

I think the easiest solution would be to put radio jammers on military vehicles that extent out 3 to 4 meters around creating a dead zone for cellphone signals.


I

 

[Thorough Pro]

What if they are wired or use some other form of trigger mechanism like weight, movement, etc?

I wonder what technology and techniques can be used to meet the Army requirements

I think the easiest solution would be to put radio jammers on military vehicles that extent out 3 to 4 meters around creating a dead zone for cellphone signals.


I

 

[Fenrir]

What if they are wired or use some other form of trigger mechanism like weight, movement, etc?

Those are triggers, but the fuse on most modern bombs is still electronic (this give a more predictable time-delay than does a burning fire - and it's less noticeable. Smokeless fuses are predictable, but still less so than an electronic fuse) and the signal from the trigger to the fuse can be disrupted so the fuse doesn't start the detonation sequence.

This is a time delay fuse:

Many modern IEDs are daisy-chained artillery shells - to enhance the blast effect and compound disarming difficulty. Their fuses look like this:

These can be electronically disrupted to prevent detonation.

Some remove the original fuse and replace it with electric det cord:

Again, the signal can be disrupted.

This method doesn't work for non-electronic IED fuses, such as non-electronic blasting caps or smokeless power coils.

And no! This doesn't mean an EMP would be an effective counter-IED system. Simple electronics aren't as vulnerable to electronic-overload as more complex systems - like chips, are.