FEATURE ARTICLE

August 2005

New Science, Strategy Needed to Protect Bases

by Joe Pappalardo

Protecting installations from biological and chemical attacks is receiving fresh attention from the Department of Defense, as researchers develop tools and knowledge for managing such strikes.

Fears that military bases, supply hubs and civilian installations might be targeted are driving some attention away from front line fighters to protect their rear flank. “We’re shifting our focus on protecting things that support the warfighter,” said Donna Barbush, director of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological integration for the deputy assistant secretary for chem-bio defense. “Sometimes it doesn’t look like the traditional war fight.”

The military is launching a new effort, including equipment purchases, scientific studies and research initiatives, to guard against biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear strikes. The goal is to thwart an attack, and stay operational if one does occur.

“Response and recovery are getting a fresh look,” said Klaus Schafer, deputy assistant for chemical and biological defense at the Pentagon. “It’s about time for that.”

Joint Program Guardian handles a wide array of installation defenses and homeland defense missions. Its manager, Army Col. Camille Nichols, said her $2 billion program is “spread thin.”

The Installation Protection Program, Guardian’s central component for hardening military bases, is receiving $91 million this year, with a requested $145 million for 2006. That figure will rise to $218 million by 2009. None of the figures Nichols cited included the cost of maintaining the equipment.

“We’re not buying 200 bases worth of stuff at once,” she said at a recent industry convention. “We’re spreading that out over a period of time … Not every base will have the same equipment, but they will have the same all-hazards capability.”

Other security-focused items being developed by Guardian include robotic sentries to patrol depots and bases. These machines are studded with sensors and operate easily on the asphalt of military installations. “This is a robot made for benign environments,” Nichols said.

But much of the purchasing is going towards items that are not unique to WMD defense, she said, such as computers and communications equipment that become crucial during a crisis.

Last year, the Pentagon’s Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense awarded a three-year $117 million contract to Science Applications International Corp., of San Diego, Calif., to manage the Installation Protection Program. The contract includes an option for a three-year, $390 million extension.

SAIC, as the lead systems integrator, has recently opened a web portal to solicit bids from vendors. Items include protective suits, voice amplifiers, biological filters, hand held chemical monitors, fixed sensors, portable radiation monitors and skin decontamination kits. Nichols said that 60 meetings with potential vendors have been arranged through the Internet portal.

There are gaps in the scientific knowledge of chemical and biological threats. This lack of information can be deadly during an attack, and can mean the difference between a base reopening for action, or staying operationally defunct.

One dilemma for base commanders is the delicate balance between resuming critical operations while protecting staff. That means investigating the lingering effects of small amounts of dangerous materials, officials said.

“What we need to figure out is how clean is safe,” said Charles Galloway, director of chem-bio defense at the Joint Technology Office of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

According to Galloway, most of the U.S. research on the effects of chemical and biological agents dates to when the United States had an offensive program, which Richard Nixon halted during his presidency.

Data sets exist covering how much of an agent can kill a person, and how long it persists. What is needed now, however, is information on the effects of trace amounts of toxins—the science to support risk management.

Galloway said that, along with low-threshold limits, time-consuming studies are needed to assess the long term, residual risks of exposure to dangerous agents.

Other minor issues can become critical. Galloway offered as an example a recent test of a chemical agent dropped on concrete. All of the agent soaked into the pores of the concrete, thwarting any detection on the surface. However, a sprinkle of water caused a resurgence, a chemical weapon flash flood. The impact of this as a base is trying to restart operations needs to be understood and considered during planning, Galloway argued.

Decontamination materials are also getting a new look. Again, Galloway said, the devil is in the details. What is needed is a material that can clean biological and chemical weapons without destroying any equipment. For example, Galloway noted, a promising nerve gas cleanser sanitized the toxic agent, but also dissolved all the plastic on the affected vehicles.

False positives can keep a base closed. Some harmless, naturally occurring biological agents appear similar to weaponized versions, and equipment must be able to distinguish them from real dangers.

Force protection is about more than permanent bases. Another challenge facing military researchers is designing protective equipment that can be deployed with troops on expeditionary missions. Lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used to design troop friendly equipment, according to Stanley Enatsky, joint program manager for collective protection.

“The systems have been logistically too much of a burden,” he said. “A lot of time (soldiers) will take the bullets … and leave the collective protection systems behind.”

Threats to the support units have increased the need for new protective gear, Enatsky said, citing medical areas, command-and-control centers and weapon system control stations as prime places where chem-bio shielding is needed.

He added that his office is looking to buy items quickly, but also has a research and development effort. For 2006, the Joint Expeditionary Collective Protection budget has increased from zero to $7.6 million. By 2008, that figure is projected to rise to $20 million.

Another major effort, Enatsky said, is building a chemical and biological resistant shelter with new air purification system and chemical and biological agent-resistant materials. Evaluations of these shelters are scheduled between the end of the year and early 2006. Procurement funds for this item have been set at $16.5 million for 2006, and $30 million for 2007.

In all items, modularity and flexibility to adapt to new components are required. “We have to have these systems mobile and ready to go when the warfighter is ready to go,” said Enatsky.

Back To Top