Another week has passed and life in Baghdad continues. The dirt keeps blowing, the temperatures have been very comfortable, and the soldiers keep going outside the wire keeping ground-level lanes of communication clear for military and commercial traffic alike. EOD teams continue to respond to tasking (i.e. in the hundreds per week) from route clearance to IED’s discovered by civilians in homes and/or businesses. Rocket attacks here at Victory Base Camp and in downtown Baghdad (i.e. in the IZ or Green Zone) have stepped up in concert with the overall rise in insurgent activity in the area and in Basra.
When the pace picks up like we have experienced over the last week or two, I see one constant and that is the “focus” of all here, i.e. the ones supporting the forces, back at base camp. Whether we are talking about Motor Pool maintenance support, administration support (i.e. the J1 shop) or the Rapid Equipment Force, (i.e. a rapid prototyping shop) all “step up” and meet the challenge. For us in the J8, Science and Technology, this increase in operations tempo typically means our testing of prototypical equipment is affected due to personnel training needs. We have an increased awareness of efforts to survey the S&T arena for emerging new technologies or techniques to address the evolving high priority threat, and we augment training of EOD personnel when new equipment is introduced into the field. I will very briefly highlight a few of the importance aspects the J8 places on introduction of new equipment into the Iraqi Theater of Operations (ITO) for the Counter-Improved Explosive Device (C-IED).
As I have tried to highlight in previous entries, many urgent operational needs are identified and validated by the DoD chain of command in support of the fight against the insurgent/terrorist IED. I have tried to document the local, in theater process that feeds the mainstream technology development and acquisition processes. Since the onset of the war, March 2003, there have been mission needs and capability gaps that need addressing. Also, frequently there are technologies that need maturation to meet specific needs. Over the last 2-3 years in rapidly fielding equipment to meet these needs, “lessons learned” have provided the insight that a couple of system metrics are paramount. Their importance is such that we cannot field equipment if we do not have assessment data to characterize these parameters. The high priority four are; reliability, availability, maintainability and interoperability. While this list isn’t comprehensive, it is a focus of selected suitability aspects of any new technology or equipment that most be characterized prior to introducing equipment into the field. Capabilities and Limitations need to be understood by the war fighter prior to introducing the equipment into the field. This premise is not in the same perspective as establishing thresholds and objectives the way we do for traditional ACAT programs. If the war fighter understands that the reliability of the UAV is 50% in an extreme environment, they can derive Tactics, Techniques and Procedures to apply this system solution to the operational problem if the associated performance parameters warrant. However, if we understand the system has the capability to fly high & far, observe areas of interest, and communicate the details back to the area commander, but we do not have a good grasp of the system’s reliability, availability and/or interoperability, then its value as an operational asset is suspect. Accordingly, operational risk is high. The operative word here is “understand”. There needs to be a consensus between the rear component and the forward war fighters as to what adequate validation of these key metrics are with respect to evaluation environment, number of trials, and pedigree of configuration.
That’s the latest word from Baghdad. Hopefully there was some insight here, if not a focus on a new paradigm for some maybe just a re-emphasis of the obvious for others. Before I depart I will include a picture or two of the world over here, for your interest.
Me next to a Cougar-MRAP
The Wire at Night
Sgt. 1st Class Scott R. Smith
Sgt. 1st Class Scott R. Smith died in Iraq while doing his job — disarming bombs. At a ceremony last year at the military installation, friends and loved ones of the Pennsylvania native remembered him as an affable fix-it man who didn’t shirk from dangerous tasks. Picatinny Arsenal has honored Sgt. 1st Class Scott R. Smith by placing his name on the military building here where he used to work. “He saved lives and did things most of us couldn’t imagine,” said Smith’s widow, 27-year-old Gari-Lynn Smith. Master Sgt. Gregory T. Miller, who worked with Smith as an explosive ordnance disposal specialist, remembered his friend by his nickname — “Smitty.” “He was happy, he never let things get him down,” Miller said of the 34-year-old Punxsutawney, Pa., man.
Smith worked as a mechanic before joining the Army in the early 1990s, becoming a military policeman. Responding to bomb threats got him interested in disarming explosives. At Picatinny, Smith worked at the building now named after him, where he and his colleagues helped train bomb recognition and disposal to other soldiers. Smith was also involved in developing and testing robots designed to detect bombs. Smith was based at Picatinny from 2000 until February 2006, when he was deployed to Iraq. He died on July 17, 2006, while attempting to defuse an improvised explosive device when another exploded nearby, according to the Army.
