Up to 200 U.S. military bases will be equipped with chemical and biological
detectors during the next several years, under a program that could cost as
much as $1.3 billion.
The plan is to use existing off-the-shelf detectors, rather than try to develop
new technology. The Pentagon’s Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical
and Biological Defense recently awarded a three-year $117 million contract to
Science Applications International Corp., of San Diego, Calif., to oversee the
integration of multiple types of detectors. The contract has options for another
three-year $390 million extension.
SAIC will manage a team of contractors. Johnson Controls Inc., of Cape Canaveral,
Fla. will support installation, fielding and upkeep of the equipment. Midwest
Research Institute, of Kansas City, Mo., will evaluate and test biological detection
systems.
Although biological detectors need to be improved, current technology for the
most part can do the job, said Michael Helmstetter, director of technical operations
for MRI. “The best thing to do is make the current system better until
the next generation arrives,” he told National Defense.
The Defense Department expects the contractors to employ current technology
but to gradually incorporate next-generation systems as they become available.
“Existing technology gives us a considerable capability in conjunction
with well-thought-out operational concepts and well-trained personnel,”
an Army official said.
Securing military bases is challenging especially for smaller installations
that rely on local first responders, said retired Army colonel Ted Newing, a
security expert. “The smaller installations are dependent on outside help.
The larger ones have memorandum of understanding and reciprocal agreements with
local authorities on the other side of the fence,” Newing said. “The
mega-installations, the ones that are capable of handling themselves, are in
the minority… They make up only about 10 percent [of all military installations.]”
Interoperability between civilian and military assets becomes critical, Newing
said. “It’s not going to be the military [assets] that will be the
savior here. It will be off-the-shelf equipment that will be interoperable and
able to be networked,” he said. “People are saying, ‘When
we buy stuff, let’s make sure it’s compatible.’”
“Effective communication both on-base and with the surrounding communities
is essential in providing the best protection,” said the Army official.
“Within the family of systems approach, while detection systems differ,
the warning and response systems are for the most part the same for chemical,
biological or radiological events.”
One dilemma for base commanders is the delicate balance between resuming critical
functions while protecting staff. By prioritizing functions, leaders can try
to remain functional in the face of a mass-casualty event, Newing maintained.
A great deal of a base’s challenge is to simply survive the first 12 to
18 hours after an attack—the accepted time it takes for state or federal
assets to arrive.
“Most of them can continue at some level of mission-critical activity,”
Newing said. “They need to find a balance between protecting their people
and performing their mission. They can’t do it all.”