Sensing Roadside Bombs

I can't overstate my support for a program such as this. We're talking about the worst kind of warfare, if there is such a thing. From a technical stanpoint, how selective and precise can this be in an area already ravaged, and still packed with loads of munitions from both sides?

I concur. The problem is that all you have to do is to open one dud shell in the back of a pickup truck and gently trickle the contents out to "contaminate" miles of roadway. Then what good is your clever sniffer then?

There are other ways, that require political will to make work.

Its not like this is a new problem, and almost every possible solution has been tried and tested. Why are we re-inventing the wheel here?

Read this and see what worked in the past. Then compare to the debacle of what is going on in Afganistan now!

Most articles that I read in the public media that address technology usually get it all wrong. Perhaps reporting and editing skills are not compatible with scientific knowledge.

I suspect that this article falls into that category.

I doubt that ammonium nitrate or potassium chlorate are used to any great extent in IEDs. I have worked on projects to develop sensors for IEDs, and these compounds are not on the list of target compounds.

You would need a pretty big bomb with these materials to damage an armored vehicle. My impression is that the vast majority of IEDs are made from commercial high explosives, often scavenged from unexploded ordinance, or made from the shells themselves.

Very few explosives can be detected in the vapor phase at room temperature. Their vapor pressure is simply too low to produce a high enough concentration to detect, even with the most sensitive detectors. Explosive detectors (like used in the airport) rely on picking up a particle of explosives, and heating it up to detect the vapor. That's why they swab your bag, not just "sniff" it at the airport. Even "vapor" sensors rely on capturing dust particles with explosive vapors absorbed on them, and heating them to produce enough vapor to detect.

As others have mentioned, any areas where battle had taken place (or even gunfire) would be heavily contaminated with explosive residue. There would be no way to distinguish IEDs from this background.

Is there any truth to this story? I can see a very low, very slow moving aircraft sampling a huge volume of air detecting large operations where explosives are aggressively handled. On a day with no wind, but a lot of dust. In a village surrounded by area where no weapons have been fired or artillery have fallen in several days. Maybe, on a good day. I'm not sure that this is the scenario commonly found in Afghanistan for IED manufacturers.

A guy in a hut wiring up a couple of artillery shells would have nothing to fear.

The article said the plane had "sensors", not "sniffers". I can think of many things that could be "sensed" that would give a profile of a bomb maker that do not involve detecting explosive vapors in the air.

IEDs are successful, like any ambush tactic, because of the predictable behaviour of our troops.

Should our troops use the old techniques - men in small dispersed groups on foot patrol, with helicopter backup for rapid pullout? Give the troops (light) portable detection gear and training to be independent in the field for days at a time. There is nothing more dangerous to an enemy than competent guerillas.

Why are the enemy not caught in the act of laying IEDs? This enemy has proved over 20 years that they don't fear technology. They are highly adaptable as are country people everywhere. Get the back-block boys on the job?

Are we using night patrols by predator etc to detect the enemy's infrared signature?

Its clearly a better idea to stop the IEDs going in the ground than detecting and defusing them so any steps along this path are to be encouraged despite the problems with background munitions in an area that has seen continuous warfare for 100+ years.

That said maybe rough sensors that only pick up a big signal would help overcome the problem of background contamination. As usual several combinations will be required in the military sphere.

Ultimately only a political solution will solve the problem after both sides have killed a load more of each others men and sadly civilians

I work in this area; equipping aircraft with sensors to detect all kinds of battlefield activity.

Believe me when I say that sniffer style sensors (ala Vietnam) are a very small percentage of the work going on. Much of the work going on involves preventing IED's being emplaced in the first place.

We own the night!! (when most of that activity occurs and when the politicians don't get in the way)

Hooker

When it comes to military ops, don't believe everything you read, as there will be a lot of disinformation out there to protect other sources and keep the enemy looking over their shoulders