Improvised explosive devices have been the most lethal enemy threat to U.S. forces during military operations in Southwest Asia. Counter-IED technologies are adapting to ever-more-sophisticated IED threats.

BY J.R. Wilson

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) have been the enemy’s signature weapons in Southwest Asia for more than a decade of war. But IEDs actually have been in use for at least 500 years, although the term itself was not invented until the 1970s, when the British Army used it to identify remote-controlled or booby trap Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombs made from fertilizer and Semtex smuggled from Libya.

They also were widely used in World War II to cover retreating German Army troops and by resistance groups fighting the Nazis. The Vietnam War in the 1960s also saw IED use against U.S. infantry.

Georgian soldiers search for simulated improvised explosive devices during a mission rehearsal exercise (MRE) in Germany last summer. (Army photo.)

But it was not until Iraq and Afghanistan that IEDs became the single most important weapon in an ongoing war – responsible for roughly two-thirds of all coalition casualties in Southwest Asia, beginning with the first confirmed death in the spring of 2003 in Afghanistan.

Many people are misled by the word “improvised,” believing it means amateurish or substandard, both of which are far from the case. The typical IED comprises five primary elements: a switch or activator, an initiator or fuse, a container, an explosive and a power source. An amateur bomb maker or one using substandard parts is more likely to blow himself up before he does anyone else.

IEDs intended to penetrate armor use a shaped charge; anti-personnel IEDs typically include nails, ball bearings, rocks or other fragmentation items to extend damage beyond the blast itself. Triggers include cell phones, garage door openers and other remote-control devices; washing machine timers, infrared or magnetic sensors, pressure bars, or trip wires. Those planting IEDs also can link them in a daisy chain spread out along a runway, roadway, or street to attack an aircraft, vehicles or foot soldiers.

Their “success” – aided by readily available bomb-making instructions on the Internet – has made IEDs the fastest growing type of weapon used by insurgents and terrorists worldwide, with hundreds of attacks now recorded every month in some 100 nations, according to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). As if that weren’t enough, now there is growing evidence they have been adopted by some nation-states for use in urban warfare environments.

The global IED threat

Last year alone, the DOD’s Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) reported more than 27,000 IED incidents around the world that caused more than 56,000 casualties.

As the war in Southwest Asia progressed, IEDs became more powerful and sophisticated, as designers crafted each new generation to circumvent the latest Coalition detection and disposal technologies. As with most weapons in history, each advance by one side led to counter advances by the other. Thus battlefield changes drove requirements and forced accelerated research into new technologies.

“Innovative enemy tactics have forced innovation by the U.S. and its allies. JIEDDO identified new solutions or adaptive ways to use existing technologies. For Radio-Controlled IEDs (RCIEDs), CREW [Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare] jammers will remain the primary method of defeating threat devices,” says Patrick McKinney, JIEDDO’s program integrator for rapid capability delivery. “In a threat environment as dynamic as RCIEDs, a defeat mechanism must be as dynamic as the threat base.

“CREW systems, tailorable to the predominant threats, are continually updated based on intelligence from the battlefield,” McKinney continues. “JIEDDO, in conjunction with the CREW community of interest, remains vigilant in ensuring CIED systems remain effective, relevant and ahead of the enemy. Training and CIED awareness remain the primary mitigation measure for low-tech IEDs of the command- or victim-initiated variety. JIEDDO works extensively with theater and combatant commands [COCOMs] to develop programs that enhance awareness, train best practices and protect the force.”

The end of U.S. ground combat operations in Southwest Asia has seen an increase in IED attacks in Afghanistan and especially by ISIS in Iraq. An increasingly popular new version introduced by ISIS is the House-Borne IED (HBIED), where an entire house is rigged to detonate and collapse shortly after a military squad has entered the building on a house-clearing mission.

“The IED threat is global, enduring and spreading. We will continue to see tactics, techniques and procedures [TTPs] proliferate, [with] a marked rise of IED use in conflicts around the globe, complicated by the rise of technology-enabled warfare,” McKinney says. “The IED is used with strategic effect not only against our deployed forces, but also in our homeland. Today’s most experienced extremists can share their lessons learned with the newest generation of extremists without the risk of face-to-face contact or travel. Violent extremists will adopt sophisticated technology limited only by the builder’s imagination.

“Threat networks are actively recruiting and trying to attract white-collar professionals, such as chemists, physicists and engineers, to help support their tactical and strategic efforts,” McKinney continues. “Combined, threat network capabilities mirror that of an iterative industrial complex for IEDs and we are seeing examples of this today in various IED switches. And experienced enemy combatants are returning to their countries of origin with increased knowledge of irregular warfare tactics and IED construction TTPs.”

IED use in the United States has included the backpack pressure cooker bombs used by the Boston Marathon bombers on 15 April 2013 and the Vehicle IED (VIED) used by Timothy McVeigh against the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

A U.S. Marine checks for improvised explosive devices while leading a patrol during a training exercise in Kuwait last winter. (Marine Corps photo.)

In Boston, two bombs exploded 13 seconds and about one block apart near the race finish line. Three spectators were killed and 264 others injured, including 14 who required amputations or lost limbs as a direct result of the blasts. Investigators learned the bombs, containing nails and ball bearings for maximum damage, had been manufactured by two fanatical Muslim brothers using instructions posted online by al-Qaida.

The Oklahoma City bombing, a $652 million act of domestic terrorism by two anti-government extremists, killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, destroyed or damaged 324 buildings and 86 vehicles within a 16-block radius and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. Using a 4800 pound mixture of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitro methane and diesel fuel packed into a rental truck parked in front of the building, McVeigh’s VIED created a blast equivalent to more than 2.5 tons of TNT that could be heard up to 55 miles away and registered approximately 3.0 on the Richter scale.

In areas where the primary insurgents and terrorists are Islamic fanatics, suicide bombers have grown from explosive-laden vests to Suicide VIEDs (SVIEDs) they drive up to a target and detonate while still inside.

Multinational counter-IED force

Government instability and military actions by rebels, army deserters and al-Qaida-linked Islamic terrorist groups led to the creation of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in 2013. Comprising more than 11,500 uniformed personnel (military and police) from 50 nations, along with more than 1000 local and international civilians and 125 UN volunteers, MINUSMA has focused on ensuring security, stabilization and protection of civilians; supporting national political dialogue and reconciliation; assisting the reestablishment of state authority; rebuilding of the security sector and the promotion and protection of human rights in Mali.

As of 31 March 2015, 49 MINUSMA troops had died in action and more than 100 more were injured, with IEDs being the principal cause of all casualties.

A Marine Corps infantryman watches as a Georgian soldier uses a sickle to identify possible improvised explosive devices.

“With its network of bases and its extended movements, MINUSMA has become their [the extremists’] primary target,” according to a December 2014 report by the UN Secretary General. “Improvised explosive devices and anti-vehicle mines placed along routes used by MINUSMA severely hindered its operations.”

While the report said MINUSMA has accelerated its counter-IED program, including acquisition of mine-protected vehicles and more training for its personnel, it also noted the African contingents comprising most of the mission’s forces are highly vulnerable to IEDs, lacking the equipment and self-sustainment capability required for UN peacekeeping.

IEDs also have become a growing threat in India, where insurgent organizations such as the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) have planted what the Indian military described as “powerful IEDs” along roadways used by security forces in the northeast Indian state of Manipur, which has seen continuous anti-government activities for more than half a century.

In February 2015, an Irish Army Bomb Disposal Team responded to an IED alert at a private residence in Cork City. A controlled explosion was carried out at the scene to render the device safe and the remains were moved to a military location for further testing. It was the first viable device of the year in Ireland, but the fifth call-out received by the Army bomb disposal unit in 2015. In 2014, there were 141 call-outs; 52 of those were viable devices.

The scope of the problem has led to an increasing number of U.S. EOD teams training host nation militaries and police in Counter-IED methods and technology, such as Marine Corps Special Marine Air/Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF) Crisis Response-Africa efforts in Uganda and Burundi, multinational European exercises focusing on manual neutralization of IEDs and U.S. and Dutch navy EOD technicians working together in an exercise in support of the 14-nation littoral warfare exercise Bold Alligator in November 2014.

“When you look at the global trends, it is clear these weapons are not just a facet of our fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, but an aspect of the world we now live in and will operate in for the foreseeable future,” says JEIDDO’s director, Lt. Gen. John. D. Johnson.

Counter-IED state-of-the-art

The sophistication of an IED depends on the skills and experience of its bomb-maker and the materials available to him, from scavenged military explosives to fertilizer to industrial dynamite, along with easily obtainable electronic devices to use as triggers.

The technologies being used for detection and defeat of IEDs include ground-penetrating radar (GPR), handheld metal detectors, and explosive trace detection systems. Among the most widely used counter-IED technologies in Iraq and Afghanistan were small robots, such as iRobot’s PackBot and QinetiQ North America’s TALON, which could remotely examine suspect vehicles, packages, buildings, and tunnels. Such robots are expected to remain a keystone in counter-IED efforts long into the future, albeit with increasing sophistication and capability.

Two U.S. Army Husky vehicle-mounted mine detection systems use ground-penetrating radar to detect IEDs. (Army photo.)

And an “old” technology that originally gave U.S. ground forces control of the night has evolved to help counter the growing threat. The Night Vision & Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center at Fort Belvoir, Va., has been at the forefront of that effort.

“As the threat facing our soldiers evolves, night vision continues to develop technologies to meet these changing threats,” says Rich Nabors, deputy director of NVESD’s operations division. “Extensive, long-term NVESD work in this area has taught our scientists of the need for multifunction detection devices that offer soldiers multiple capabilities in single technology packages; sensors with multifunction capabilities are essential to limiting the soldier’s need to carry several detection devices.

“Additionally, NVESD is conducting research of sensors to relieve the cognitive burden required by legacy detection systems,” Nabors continues. “NVESD is performing world-class research in-house in the development of techniques to improve the U.S. Army’s Husky Mounted Detection System (HMDS). These improvements provide an advanced LIDAR profilometry with forward-looking and downward-looking GPR to help eliminate ground bounce and surface clutter. Technical expertise in laser and countermine component technology development continues to improve the forward-looking dual-band GPR for buried threat detection.”

In June 2014, the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., transferred to the U.S. Army for ground troop use a breakthrough IED detection capability – the Copperhead Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), a highly modified MiniSAR system that has been used on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Southwest Asia since 2009. Copperhead detects disturbances in the earth such as those made when IEDs are buried, day or night, and in many weather conditions, including fog and dust storms.

Soldiers use the iRobot 510 PackBot to identify and disarm a simulated improvised explosive device at the Robotics lane at Fort Irwin, Calif. (Army photo.)

In the early years of the wars in Southwest Asia, U.S. and Coalition troops were unprepared for the types and level of IEDs they were facing. The military responded by providing ground forces with whatever off-the-shelf equipment they had that might offer even a little assistance. Meanwhile, military and contractor labs worked overtime to develop new and better ways to detect and dispose of IEDs, even as the enemy worked equally hard to stay ahead of the curve.

In February 2006, DOD also created JIEDDO to, according to its mission statement, “focus (lead, advocate, coordinate) all Department of Defense actions in support of the Combatant Commanders and their respective Joint task forces’ efforts to defeat IEDs as weapons of strategic influence”. The Organization seeks to accomplish its mission through three primary lines of operation: attacking the enemy’s network, defeating the device and training the force.

Johnson, who became JIEDDO’s fifth director in 2013, told the second annual Explosives Ordnance Disposal, Improvised Explosive Device and Countermine Symposium in 2014 the transnational nature of threat networks, terrorists and crime organizations now incorporating IEDs as a weapon of choice mean they are likely to be part of any future battlefield, regardless of the enemy.

“One of the keys to fighting this networked, global enemy is the ability to know who the enemy is,” he said. “We have put a huge emphasis on forensics. Soldiers treat an IED site like a crime scene. We figure out a bomb-maker’s signature and track how they operate and share knowhow around the globe.

Disruptive technology

“IEDs are a manifestation of a bigger problem – disruptive technology. The enemy has figured out how to arrest our technological advantage on a localized or temporal basis. Their combination of local attacks gives them potential for strategic advantage.”

The FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center has become a key forensics game-changer, analyzing IED components and information from 38 countries to identify their origin and commonalities, as well as what new technologies may be involved in their construction and use. That also assists JIEDDO’s fourth priority – anticipating future developments.

“I don’t want us to be so focused on the IED that we miss the ‘next IED’. The enemy is creative and adaptive and we have to be equally so,” Johnson warned. “The enemy adapts to any measures we take. We have to be constantly on our toes to the changes we see these threat networks making.

“We must make some tough choices about what we keep, what we idle and what we set aside. In the short term, we have to anticipate future threats and do our best to gear up for it. And if we can’t anticipate the threat, we have to be able to react rapidly.”

A U.S. Army Buffalo explosive device detection vehicle digs up an improvised explosive device during route clearance operations at McCrady Training Center, Eastover, S.C. (National Guard photo.)

Next-generation counter-IED

As IEDs, whether developed and employed by terrorists or nation-states, are becoming more and more sophisticated, so too are the technologies under development to counter them.

For example, the Haptics-based Immersive Tele-robotic System (HITS) employs a touch-sensitive robotic interface containing an immersive telepresence environment for a remotely-controlled three-articulated-robotic-arm system, according to a paper presented at the SPIE Unmanned Systems Technology XVI conference in June 2014. The four Canadian-based authors – David Erickson from Defence research Canada and Hervé Lacheray, Gilbert Lai and Amir Haddadi from Quanser Inc. – said the project demonstrates that a two-armed anthropomorphic EOD robot interface can use complex neutralization techniques against realistic IEDs without exposing the operator to danger.

“While the haptic feedback enhances the operator’s perception of the remote environment, a third teleoperated dexterous arm, equipped with multiple vision sensors and cameras, provides stereo vision with proper visual cues and a 3D photo-realistic model of the potential IED,” they wrote. “This decentralized system combines various capabilities, including stable and scaled motion, singularity avoidance, cross-coupled hybrid control, active collision detection and avoidance, compliance control and constrained motion, to provide a safe and intuitive control environment for the operators.”

To counter what is expected to be a new front in the IED war, the Department of Homeland Security has contracted Saab, in cooperation with DHS’ Technical Support Working Group, to develop a Water-Borne IED Remotely Operated Vehicle (WBIEDROV) to detect and defeat underwater IEDs in U.S. domestic waters.

“We hope to follow the huge strides that have been made on land in the area of Remote IED disposal over the past 10 years and to address the problem of underwater security,” Agneta Kammeby, head of Saab’s Underwater Systems business unit, said when the contract was announced at the Euronaval 2014 exhibition in France in late October 2014.

Operated by the DHS Underwater Hazardous Device Team, the WBIEDROV, based on Saab’s Double Eagle Subrov, is being designed to detect, manipulate and defeat IEDs and limpet mines in the challenging underwater environment of ship hulls and jetty searches while maintaining station in a current.

Scientists at the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are working on a compact, configurable, real-time infrared hyperspectral imaging (HSI) system to detect and identify chemical and explosive threat materials in a variety of complex, high variable background conditions. Existing HSI systems are large, costly to field, operate and support and generally do not operate in real time, while those that do are limited in the number of spectral bands, image definition or targets being detected.

According to DARPA’s three-phase request for proposals to industry, “what is needed is an IR hyperspectral imaging and sensing capability with the following characteristics:

1. rapidly field-configurable operation to adapt to different targets or operating conditions;
2. real-time, target on-the-move operation, ideally at the frame rate of the focal plane array camera;
3. real-time automated target signature detection, performed within the system to dramatically reduce data bandwidth, downlink transmission bandwidth requirements and post-processing;
4. significantly reduced cost, size and weight; and
5. imaging operation with minimal support infrastructure.

“The resulting system should be able to support one or more of the following missions: counter IED detection, IFF, bio/chemical WMD detection and tag, track and locate (TTL) missions,” DARPA said. “The military utility of the data and intelligence that is generated by the current large and costly systems has been demonstrated.

SWaP and costs

“Driving the SWaP and cost down such that the system can be used by a dismount or on a small UAV will enable proliferation of the capability in the same way that night vision goggles or cell phones have become an integral part of the soldier’s arsenal. Requiring the system to be compatible with existing systems and data formats will help ensure more rapid acceptance and use.”

DARPA’s compact HSI effort would be applicable to finding ways to detect next-generation IEDs that are not “visible” to existing systems due to the use of non-metallic cases and components and new types of explosives. Given the need to make detectors multifunctional and of common distribution across multiple forces worldwide, that has led to a growing emphasis on Smart Multi-sensor Counter-IEDs.

One such is an advanced Counter IED and Mine Suite (CIMS or ELI-3375) being developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for route clearance to protect lead combat maneuver forces operating in areas known or suspected to be IED- or mine-infested.

CIMS is designed to detect surface and underground IEDs, mines and roadside bombs using an integrated suite of sensors, processing and decision support tools – an Above-surface Detection System (ADS) incorporating an advanced side-looking SAR, high-resolution optical detection system and infrared multispectral investigation system and an underground Mine and IED Detection System (MIDS) comprising a GPR and a magnetic detector. It also performs automatic cuing of sensors and complimentary countermeasure systems, including IED neutralization and hard kill, to autonomously and remotely defeat or destroy suspected IEDs.

A Marine Corps dog searches for explosives during a patrol near Patrol Base Boldak in Helmand province, Afghanistan. (Marine Corps photo.)

The European Defense Agency (EDA), meanwhile, has announced plans for five IED projects, to begin by the end of 2015 and run through 2018. Those will involve one UAV-based and one UGV-based (unmanned ground vehicle) early warning project, one UGV-based stand-off detection system, a “confirmation and identification” capability and a multi-sensor urban distributed ISR demonstrator.

Another technology with future potential, being developed by Phoenix Nuclear Labs (PNL) in partnership with the U.S. Army, uses a compact, high-yield neutron source for IED detection. Called NEMESIS (neutron emitting mobile explosives sensing and identification system), it is based on a neutron generator 1000 times stronger than conventional accelerator-based neutron generators and has demonstrated a standoff distance up to 100 feet, with a high degree of accuracy, according to PNL President Ross Radel.

Generating a steady state production of as many as 1014 neutrons per second, the NEMESIS broad energy spectrum can detect all key nuclear elemental signatures: nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, silicon, and iron. It also can significantly reduce false-positive responses to silicon, wet soil conditions, and background nitrogen in air. According to Radel, by directly detecting the explosive material itself, rather than metallic bomb components, so-called “detection-proof” bombs made without metal, wires or electronic triggering mechanisms “are as easy to detect as any other bomb.”

“We’ve known for some time that certain types of IEDs can potentially go undetected through existing scanners that use X-rays,” Radel told the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. “The beauty of our system is that it can detect unconventional explosives, such as homemade explosives, that might not be caught by existing security infrastructure.”

In February 2015, the U.S. Army issued a solicitation to industry for a lightweight handheld device with a user-friendly interface that can collect data from several sensors to help dismounted warfighters detect metallic and non-metallic IEDs and land mines. It also must present the user with 2D and 3D visual representations on a display that is either integrated or mounted on the detector.

A Marine searches for improvised explosive device indicators with a Holley stick during a counter IED course held at the Marine Corps Engineer School’s Home Station Training Lanes in Holly Ridge, N.C.

No silver bullet

“There is no silver bullet to this problem; it’s using multiple capabilities to maximize results. Threat networks are learning organizations, more agile and flatter than we are. They operate seamlessly and virtually using social media and the Internet to communicate, raise funds and share intelligence,” JIEDDO’s McKinney says. “We, too, must become equally adaptable, agile and flexible. The enemy is a master of off-the-shelf and dual-use components, using ordinary containers, commercial fertilizer, wire, discarded batteries and scraps of wood to construct their devices. We must figure out how to counter this threat.

“One of the lessons re-learned is the value of training. Training must accompany innovation. Our best Counter-IED weapon will always be a well-trained soldier. We must identify and continue to invest in capabilities to counter the evolving IED threat.”

Some had expected JIEDDO to disband when U.S. troops left Afghanistan; instead, it was permanently re-aligned in March 2015 as a combat support agency under the Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. In that role, Johnson vowed, it will be at the forefront of tracking and responding to current use and future evolutions of IEDs.

“We track IEDs around the world and… anywhere U.S. troops deploy, they are going to be at risk of IEDs. The enemies are very innovative and they share their ideas and innovations. If we see IEDs that have success in one place, we can guarantee you we’re likely to see it elsewhere,” Johnson said in announcing the organization’s new status. “Now we’re back helping the Iraqis with the problems there – and our enemies are using IEDs in greater numbers all the time.”

Calling U.S. warfighters “the most trained, most capable weapon” against IEDs, Johnson added JIEDDO will continue to “provide counter-IED capabilities that allow [warfighters] to adapt and be that number one weapon on the battlefield.”

The challenge JIEDDO and others face in dealing with future IEDs and counter-IED efforts was summed up precisely by an Iraqi colonel fighting ISIS: “When you beat them today, they will think of a way to build an even more sophisticated bomb, so you won’t beat them again.