Countering Baghdad's 'Lob Bombs'
U.S. troops are scrambling to come up with tactics for defeating the new Improvised Rocket-Assisted Mortars, or "lob bombs," that have appeared in Baghdad in recent months.
IRAMs mate crude gas-canister warheads with rocket motors to create "flying IEDs," or improvised explosive devices, and are often launched in salvos from the backs of trucks. Danger Room first reported on the devices in June.
"It's mobile, it's concealable.... In the right place, at the right time, it can be very lethal," Lt. Col. John Digiambattista, operations officer for the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, told The Washington Times. "Our biggest challenge is to keep it out of an area where it can do the most damage."
For starters, U.S. troops patrol a perimeter around U.S. bases that is just outside IRAMs' estimated range. But that range keeps growing.
"Right now, we assess the distance as 500 meters," Maj. Geoff Greene, of the 68th Armored Regiment, said. "At first, we estimated it at 300 meters, but they have gotten better at it. I suspect the enemy will improve upon them even more."
Now the Army is going after IRAM factories, Greene said. "If we find a large amount of tubes threaded at one end, wheels to position the tubes to position the rockets, combined with a Bongo truck or other large truck, those are the characteristics of finding an IRAM. To find them all together is either a coincidence, or people are building an IRAM."
IRAMs' crude design makes them dangerous for the bad guys, too. In one incident in Baghdad in June, a truck fitted with IRAMs exploded when one of the rockets went off prematurely (pictured), killing two Special Groups fighters and 16 civilians.
Photo: via The Long War Journal
ALSO:
- Afghan Bombs on the Rise
- Bomb-Sniffing Scam Exposed
- Bomb-Stopping Tech Sold to Iraq: Big Deal?
- 300 IEDs a Month -- Outside Iraq and Afghanistan
- IED, Marked 'For Use Vs. Occupation Forces'
- Wanted: Superbomb Stoppers
- Jammers, Spy Blimps Battle Bombs
- Improvised Bombs: Down in Iraq, Up in Afghanistan; Tech Barely a Factor
- Pentagon's Bomb-Fighters: Temps, Well-Paid
- Pentagon Bomb-Squad Chief Looks Back
- Pentagon Bomb-Fighter Stumped by IED Drop
- Huge Drop in Roadside Bombs: How Come?
- Pentagon Bomb Squad's Budget Slammed
- Bomb Battle, Broken Down
- Pentagon Bomb-Squad Chief Bowing Out
- Exclusive: CSI vs. IEDs in Baghdad
- Jammers Beat Bombers (Which May Be Bad News)
- Insider: IED Fight Has "Strategic Flaw"
- Pentagon Bomb Squad: Half Contractor
- Military Security Threat: Bogus Bomb-Zapper's Bogus Countermeasure
- Danger, PBS!
- "IED Defeat" Group: How Effective?
- Blimps, Bots, Beams Enlisted for IED Fight
- Bomb-Fighters Defend Progress
- Bombs Still Vex "IED Defeat" Group
- Cash Crunch for Pentagon Bomb Squad
- IED Fight = "McNamara Line"?
- Pentagon Bomb Squad Under Fire
- Pentagon Bomb Squad a Dud?
- Inside the Baghdad Bomb Squad
Countering the threat is likely going to involve doing what commanders have already been doing on the ground via befriending locals and - at times - even reaching into their own wallets to help them out. Human Terrain Teams deployment could likely further that. Our presence there, like it or not, is continuing this threat and obviously this is no precision device. The local population very much have a stake in not having these tossed around them. Intel gained from locals has already proved vital numerous times-- the problem is when those sources are used then promptly abused via neglect or worse, and further the problem there is zero doctrine to assist commanders in furthering efforts in that direction. This isn't a tech question, because that's only going to protect you so far. It's a simple matter: When your friends are at your back, where to point your rifle becomes a lot less confusing.
Can those even engage something like this effectively? It seems like it would be a little like engaging artillery shells and while there are some systems that can do things like that I wasn't aware we had anything on the ground that could that sort of thing.
Jimbo,
and they HAVE been successful at shooting down rockets/mortars in Iraq! They ARE battle proven.
No excuses you folks at teh Pentagon!
And here I thought that Iraqi trucks contained miniature chemical weapons factories!
Courtesy of Defensetech
""The C-RAM is deployed at US FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) all over Iraq - not just in the so-called Green Zone. C-RAMs success rate in shooting mortar rounds and other incoming indirect ordnance out of the sky is better than 85% according to data I've received from those who've installed these systems in Iraq. C-RAM counter-fires which miss the incoming target do not simply fall to ground - each 20mm round is fused to self-destruct if contact is not made with the target."
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003917.html
85% folks!
I have a great idea, and it will definitely help when trying to avoid bombs and bullets, especially when in someone else's country. Here it is and it's so easy. Are you ready? Go home to to the United States (of fascist bullies)! Ingenious? no. Right, yes... you lot are pathetic.
@atacms: "85% folks!"
.
I think we'd all love it if those numbers turn out to be true. But let's remember that the first George Bush claimed 41 out of 42 shootdowns by Raytheon's Patriot. Figures that have been independently questioned, down to 10% or less.
.
Skepticism can be a healthy thing.
Unfortunately 'd' is somewhat right. Our military presence thereis nothing more then politics now. We have our military sitting there doing nothing more then painting targets on their backs so politicians can look tough while sitting in washington.
The military mission has been done and over for years. We never wanted or made available the resources for a proper occupation. All we've done is funnel money over there and embezzle much of it into various VIP's pockets.
Of course theres the ever present threat that 'something terrible will happen if we leave', and 'there will be chaos'. Why does that matter? ..and if there were definable chaos with a large body of actors, we would once again have a military target.. something definable to defeat.
For now all we do is drive around waiting for bombs to go off while terrorizing civilians. Breaking regional news with our occasional apologies for collateral damage while battling an amorphous enemy that is better at local propaganda then we are. Always good for p.r.
Meanwhile we lead Russia into believing its perfectly acceptable (leading by example) to invade other countries.
But no instead we'll spend millions if not billions of dollars to defeat tech thats little more then bows and arrows.. nice. A.Q. wins if on no other basis then amount of treasur burned to defeat their dollar store attacks.
@atacms
Let me see if I can give you a few reasons.
#1 The installation of those defense system would create additional targets, for more conventional methods such as car bombs. Thus creating additional risk for the local civilians.
#2 We don't have enough systems to protect our own bases, much less the civilians.
#3 The systems you talk about create their own hazard due to bullets falling back to earth.
#4 Sadly, every civilian that our enemy kills moves the local population more to our side.
#5 The enemy would just target areas that are less protected. You can't exactly hide the use of such systems.
#6 We would be liable for any damage due to falling debris, caused by us destroying in-flight bombs, instead of the enemy being liable for any deaths they cause.
Many assume in reading my posts that my mention of C-RAM means I support the fact that we should have been in Iraq. I didn't, that being said, nature abhors a vacuum and the fact that WE created that vacuum means we have a responsibility to help the Iraqis establish civic institutions and help them with their infrastructure.
You'll note that I do NOT limit the use of defensive protections to just troops, but civilians and I think that shows our desire to help. For those who would cut and leave means it propagates the ugly "realpolitick" idea that we truly could care less of other nations and others and are a nation of highly self interested individuals.
To Rob, regarding C-Ram, I'd have to say with your point 5, everything has its downside/or weakness, but the combination of systems and intel and our efforts at goodwill can/should reduce casualties not just for our troops but civilians as well.
On point 3, the rounds are made to self destruct. See the pdf link I posted earlier.
The securing of ammo depots will overall reduce point 1. On point 2, that is due to the Pentagon not knowing what systems are out there. Most DOD acquisition officials are parochial and may not even now what is suitable or useful.
This wouldn't qualify as "revealing sources and methods," would it? Or maybe that was just a neat phrase the Bush neocons contrived, to avoid answering uncomfortable questions from the Press...
Meanwhile we lead Russia into believing its perfectly acceptable (leading by example) to invade other countries.
@david b: I've said it before, I'll say it again:
B-U-L-L $-H-I-T
There were reasons we went into Iraq besides WMDs including the multiple UN resolutions Saddam had violated previously. I'll gladly debate that with you or anyone. You are simply factually incorrect to try and draw the comparison. Russia's justification OTOH, was far less clearly defined, to put it mildly.Particularly ironic considering Russia's financial "considerations" in both Iraq AND Iran (which they are now yet again playing games defending due to their financial ties). I agree it's about time to wrap this thing up, but to pretend that somehow our actions in Iraq can be connected via direct parallel to Georgia, is simply intellectually dishonest, and proveably false.
@KT: If you think "revealing sources and methods" is just an invention of the "neocon" Bush Administration, or that it originated recently, in fact, to even make that comment, you must be 8 years old. The length of Bush's term to date, because it's been around WAY before that.
these remind me of the rigs that the Irish Republican Army used in a couple of mortar attacks against some urban targets in london, the PM's residence being one...
Completely aside from C-RAM's significant problems, I VERY much doubt C-RAM could stop these things.
`
Sure, C-RAM is good at stopping mortars, but these are NOT mortars. From what I understand, these lob-bombs never achieve high altitude. They just "lob" an IED over a wall or fence, they don't send the explosive on a high ballistic trajectory.
`
If these launchers only ever reach 100 or 200 feet, then a C-RAM would never be able to engage them. Firstly because the time from launch to boom would be too quick for the C-RAM to engage, secondly because there would almost certainly be structures between the C-RAM and the projectiles during much of that very, very, short time between firing and boom. You definitely don't want C-RAM hitting innocent buildings.
`
Bottom line, if these things don't get high into the air, C-RAM would be completely worthless against them.
@Philopoemen
I guess it IS true. Facts DO have an anti-Philopoemen agenda.
`
Here's one of those pesky facts. The Russians have ALREADY used our invasion of Iraq as justification for their invasion of Georgia.
`
Here's another hard truth, the invasion of Georgia probably wouldn't have happened without bungling mixed-messages from the Bush Administration. Bush told the Georgians we had their back, other parts of his administration told the Russians we didn't have their back. Then Bush stood back and cringed as Georgia got their ass kicked.
`
Bush Doctrine: Speak LOUDLY and don't bother carrying a stick.
`
Another fact? Because of Iraq, we've lost the moral high-ground regarding invasions of sovereign nations.
`
71% of American's agree that the Bush administration has been a Foreign Policy Disaster. To paraphrase, Dick Cheney, I suppose you're just one of those "dead-enders" that can't handle the truth.
david b's first name is Barack?
`
Another pesky fact is that the Russians have ALREADY used every excuse as a justification for the oligarch's invasion of a democractic country. From Kosovo, which was by Republican Warmonger Bill Clinton, to "the Georgians invited us"; such as this: http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19332
`
Of course, why should any of us let "anti-Philopoemen" facts get in the way. Please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, don't try to read Michael Totten's background piece on the Soviet invasion found here: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
`
Desmond would agree Totten's just wrong. He's refusing to go into the peace-making Russian lines under excuses that he would be shot at, like some Turks claim (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/14/journalists.shot/). Besides, Totten's full of himself with an entire page of propagand instead of Desmond's paragraph. Hell, it doesn't mention George W. Bush, so Totten's got to be working for the neocon conspiracy, along with the Danger Room's J00ish staff.
`
Please, don't confuse Desmond's facts as opinion. They are facts - he told us so.
`
And you should be ashamed of yourself Philopoemen. Now go away back to your McChimpBushitler Masters and slink in their shadows as your job as a human toilet.
@EJS
`
Giving Bush his deserved ration of blame sure brings out the knee-jerk neo-con apologists.
`
I read Totten's piece, it's a good piece. In regards to the overall reason for this mess, Totten's piece does NOT disagree with my assessment.
`
I was saying that the Georgians had been suckered LONG before Totten wrote that article. Check out my post on this very board from August 10th.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/georgia-under-o.html#comments
`
Back then, just two days into the fiasco I wrote: "all signs point to this being a Russian "Gulf of Tonkin"
`
To me, it was ALWAYS clear that the Russians set a trap for the Georgians. A trap only works when a sucker walks into it. It's just as clear that the Georgian's walked RIGHT INTO THAT TRAP.
`
The facts (as Totten agrees) are that the Georgians DID send their military into South Ossetia. Getting them to enter South Ossetia WAS the Russian's trap. Had the Georgians not entered South Ossetia, the Russian trap would probably not have been sprung.
`
It's possible that the Russians may still have moved into South Ossetia, but the Russians would almost certainly have stopped at the border had the Georgians not gone north into Ossetia. Had the Georgians not walked right into that trap, it would have removed any justification for:
A. the Russian air strikes in Georgia proper,
B. the Russian amphibious landing,
C. the Russian destruction of the Georgian port,
D. and most especially the Russian invasion Georgia, all the way to Gori.
`
Georgia thought US security pledges would keep the Russians out of Georgia.
Georgia tried to stop the Russians.
Georgia WAS played.
`
I strongly suspect the Georgians would never have DARED send a single unit into South Ossetia had they been told the Hard Truth by the Bush Administration.
`
The truth Bush should have told them? "If you get into it with the Russians:
a. You'll be completely on your own.
b. You'll be completely destroyed.
C. We won't lift one finger to help you, even if they invade Georgia proper.
`
That WAS the truth, had the Georgians known this truth, this fiasco could have been averted. Too bad Bush didn't see fit give Georgia this heads-up before they into South Ossetia.
How come everyone wants to point to Iraq as providing justification for Russia's actions and not the US intervention in support of Kosovo?
Even if Iraq had never been invaded, Kosovo would still have provided a justification for Russia's actions in their eyes at least.
From everything I have read, Kosovo certainly angered the Russians more then the invasion of Iraq did.
I don't mind it when people argue that the invasion of Iraq was misguided or evil or whatever. But lets not pretend that the bad war (Iraq) is the root of all evil in the world where as the good war (the bombing military and civil targets in Serbia)had no negative side effects.
@Desmond: Ironic how you speak of facts, yet provide none to prove your point. I can provide documentation for all of mine. Typical argument, rail against the President, make wild accusations, provide no facts.
The Russians have ALREADY used our invasion of Iraq as justification for their invasion of Georgia.
BFD. So the Russians can try and spin like anyone else. Doesn't make it true. I mean of all the half-baked attempts to discredit me this is the angle you choose?
That facts are against me, because the Russians say so. That in it's purest form, IS your argument in the first paragraph Desmond. Funny thing is, it's devoid of facts. So the Russian's are trying to say that? SO FREAKIN WHAT. WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? NOTHING. ZERO. ZILTCH. That's what.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said the war had been mishandled?
No one said it isn't a good idea to get out, just that there were legitimate basis for the initial thrust in. It's unfortunate in the extreme the way the initial phase post-invasion was handled, but that wasn't the issue at hand. It was the justification, which, pal, is and was plain as day.
@hilopoemen
`
Ok, you agree the war has been "mishandled" (understatement of the century).
`
So why are you still carrying water for those that "mishandled" it?
`
Regarding Georgia, I addressed each of the reasons Bush is responsible for the fiasco. Once again, you pick a minor point and ignore the rest.
`
The MAJOR screw up Bush made was in telling the Georgians we had their backs, We Didn't! We were NEVER going to go to war with the Russians over tiny, insignificant Georgia. We didn't tell Georgia this.
`
The Hard FACT is that Bush gave Georgia a stick and told them not to worry about the bully. Bush then stood back and cringed as Georgia got their asses kicked.
`
At least as regards Georgia, the Bush doctrine has been: Speak Loudly and don't bother carrying a stick.
If anyone's still interested in the lede, you're better off trying to stop something like this well before launch time. C-RAM/Phalanx may or may not work, as Des, Rob and atacms point out, but even if it works, the solution costs about a million times more than the problem, if you want full coverage of every potential target in Iraq.
Given that the threat weapon has a somewhat iconoclastic signature (at least, compared to a car bomb or suicide bombers), requires no small industrial means to prepare, and has certain vulnerabilities (particularly, fuzing), you're better off interdicting it at or near the factory, before or during assembly, or on its way to the launch point. All in all, you've got a lot more leverage further inside the enemy's targeting/engagement loop. It's always better to attack the ordnance *before* it's airborne.
Which appears to be where MAJ Greene would rather concentrate his efforts. Go, Greene, go.
Another way to beat this might be offering rewards for diming out mortar makers, or paying their potential helpmates not to assist such evildoers. You could even pay them to secure their own neighborhoods. You could even give them a catchy name, like "Sons of Iraq".
I believe that's now called "counterinsurgency".
Best solution of all would be not parking your ass in the middle of a Muslim civil war in the first place.
But I guess, short of altering spacetime, that horse is out of the barn.
@demophilus
`
I agree with most of your point, not though when you say lob bombs require "no small industrial means".
`
I'm sure the designs vary, but I suspect some have certainly been fabricated in an insurgent's home.
`
For example, defense analysts have stated that the quite complex explosively formed penetrator IED's capable of taking out even our heaviest armor can be produced with the most rudimentary of means.
`
In fact, they say the "complex" copper penetrator of an EFP can be made in the same tiny and ubiquitous shops that manufacture the propane cooking cylinders used by the vast majority of Iraqi's for cooking their meals. (this despite erroneous DOD claims that these "complex" copper discs could only be made in Iran)
`
These lob bombs seem to be little more than "McGuivered" designs. They seem to be made by taking various components from pre-built weapons. While heavy industry was certainly required for the initial manufacture of the weapons re-tasked to make lob bombs, Iraq is so awash in these pre-made heavy weapons (RPG's, artillery shells, etc..) that the insurgents don't have to make them from scratch. After we allowed Saddam's ammo dumps to be looted, the DOD estimated that at the height of the insurgency, the insurgents had another ten years worth of weapons if they continued to use them at that rate.
`
My guess would be that a lob bomb is something like a rocket motor from an RPG attached to the explosives from an artillery shell, stuck inside a drainage pipe and wired up.
`
A weapon of this sort is certainly something an ordinance expert could put together on his kitchen table.
@Desmond:
Sounds like you're an expert.
Go ahead -- build a mortar truck in your kitchen.
@demophilus
`
There's absolutely no doubt that lot of these guys blow themselves up.
`
That said, the terrible risks taken when making improvised weapons haven't stopped insurgents from building IEDs and EFPs. Why do you think it would stop them from building these lob bombs?
@Desmond:
I didn't say "the terrible risks taken," etc. would stop insurgents.
My comments only went to finding better ways to interdict lob bombs than waiting until they're airborne.
No offense, but I'm done here.
Have a happy Labor Day.
More walls, better human terrain intel and a chain laser.
goodluck
web sites:
Why aren't they posting more Centurion/Phalanx C-RAM trailers around Baghdad and NOT just near US posts, but protecting civilian markets and other places with high concentration of civilians, duh?!