JED - November 2010 - (Page 22)

washing t on repor t DHS TECH GAPS INCLUDE IED PRIORITIES Defeat tactics for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are not only significant for US forces overseas, but are also among highpriority technology gaps faced by the Department of Homeland Security, according to Dr. Thomas A. Cellucci, chief commercialization officer for the DHS Science and Technology Directorate. Speaking on “Policy and Planning for Law Enforcement and Homeland Security” at last month’s AOC International Symposium and Convention in Atlanta, Cellucci discussed the agency’s need for private sector help in meeting critical technology needs, including domestic IED defeat. Cellucci noted that DHS is specifically interested in gaining private sector assistance because “it increases the speed of execution of developing technologies and products and it saves the taxpayer lots of money.” Given the difficulty in countering IED attacks, DHS is developing a “layered systems” approach to the problem – by developing technologies that can, according to the most recent High-Priority Technology Needs brief, be “injected at each stage in the IED attack timeline.” Among the high-priority technology needs are a capability to: • identify and model the human precursors of IED threats and terrorist activity within the continental US using unstructured data and novel computational models; • predict participants and locations of potential IED attacks based on existing or known geospatial, socio-cultural and behavioral information; • non-intrusively detect vehicle-borne IEDs – in particular, technologies to detect the explosive or explosive device; • detect person-borne IEDs from a standoff distance – in particular, technologies to detect the explosive or explosive device; • defeat vehicle-borne IEDs – in particular, non-explosive and standoff defeat technologies; • defeat person-borne and leave-behind IEDs; • diagnose vehicle-borne and person-borne IEDs; • diagnose and defeat water-borne IEDs, above and below the waterline; and • characterize IED threats, including IED design, assembly, detonation and effects. Among the difficulties with domestic IED defeat are the regulatory constraints on what can be done to the radio spectrum, specifically in terms of jamming. For countering radio-controlled IEDs (RCIED), DHS is looking for better optimization of existing electronic countermeasures (ECM) systems using current antenna technologies, but also development of alternate approaches for interference with initiation or control of IEDs with electromagnetic radiation, rather than jamming. – E. Richardson LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES STRUGGLE WITH TECH REQUIREMENTS Also speaking on the panel “Policy and Planning for Law Enforcement and Homeland Security” at last month’s AOC International Symposium and Convention in Atlanta, two different law enforcement officers spoke to the difficulties faced in trying to meet their technology needs. A key point made was that while electronic warfare has interesting capabilities to offer local law enforcement, the learning curve for agencies to understand EW is steep and the technologies coming from military applications can simply be too sophisticated for what they can use and afford. Aaron Kustermann, chief of intelligence for the Illinois State Police noted that without an acquisition system in place, agencies can struggle with determining their requirements. “We have to do that and have to do it right,” Kustermann said. “We’ve bought a lot of tech and built a lot of tech – sole source stuff where we thought it wasn’t out there and then come to find out it really is, it’s everywhere.” “One of the things we’re doing that we’ve never done before are cost-capability tradeoffs,” said Woody Lee, director, operational integration and analysis for the US Customs and Border Protection Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition. “I know for the people in DOD this may sound kind of silly, but that’s where we are right now. We’re in the infant stages of this.” As part of this process, Customs and Border Patrol is also looking at its aging signals intelligence (SIGINT) resources. “We have signals intelligence stuff across the United States, but most of it dates back to the 1990s. One of the projects I’m involved in is bringing that up to a program of record,” Lee said, noting that he faces challenges. “From the domestic side, when you start talking about privacy issues and some of the ethical issues of applying that type of technology, we’re very constrained.” Lee said persistent surveillance is another key need, but many of the systems they see for this come from the DOD realm. “While they’re very good, they’re also very costly for us to use. My operations and maintenance and sustainment funding is not at a level where I can change out batteries on a weekly basis,” he said. “There’s a lot of great sensors out there right now, but sometimes for the method of how we use them, they’re too smart for us right now.” – E. Richardson 22 The Journal of Electronic Defense | November 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of JED - November 2010

JED - November 2010
Table of Contents
The View From Here
From the President
The Monitor
Washington Report
World Report
Protecting Helicopters: Why ASE is About to Change the Game
The Rise... and Further Rise of FPGAs in EW
Physics of the Cyber-EMS Problem – Why We Have the Language Wrong
EW 101
AOC News
Index of Advertisers
JED Quick Look

JED - November 2010