Security Beat

July 2005

By Joe Pappalardo

Acoustic Systems Enter Homeland Security Market

The use of amplifiers in homeland defense is going far beyond the simple bullhorns and bugle-shaped speakers mounted on towers. From public address systems to directed warnings to trespassers, the science of sound is being developed and marketed for homeland security applications.

American Technology Corp., of Topsham, Md., makes systems that can direct tightly focused acoustic beams at specific targets. Its Long Range Acoustic Device can project intelligible voice communication as far away as 500 meters.

The unit uses the same concept as other phased array systems, aiming many small sound waves to converge into a single beam. The beam neatly projects away from the flat, 33-inch diameter speaker, with few or none of the wavelets audible to the users.

LRAD is currently used on Navy ships, an application developed in response to the small boat terrorist attack on the USS Cole. “If you can’t talk to them, you can’t determine intent, and you have to put a boat in the water,” said A.J. Ballard, director of force protection systems at ATC.

LRAD is also used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing a communication system for vehicles approaching checkpoints. Ballard noted that his system was being shipped to the Army 3rd Infantry Division to be used at checkpoints when soldiers accidentally shot and killed an Italian intelligence agent escorting an alleged hostage from Iraq. “LRAD was still on its way over,” he said. “If you read the reports, they say those soldiers were screaming at the car, trying to be heard.” The 3rd ID now has 150 LRADs deployed.

In late April, ATC reported a $690,000 order from the Army 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

The system has attracted customers beyond the military. LRAD is employed by large cruise ships, including the Queen Mary and all Princess cruise liners, to chase off harmless boaters and determine the intent of others breaching minimum standoff distances, Ballard said.

Border control officers also field speakers, as did the New York Police Department during the Republican National Convention. ATC personnel are quick to point out that their systems have been designed beneath pain thresholds, and are not non-lethal weapons.

Domestic use is the next hot market, officials said. In June, ATC unveiled a system optimized for homeland security operations, roughly half the size and weight of LRAD.

The Medium Range Acoustic Detector has less range, but its portability and ability to be mounted on various platforms opens the system to police boats, helicopters, border patrol vehicles and infrastructure security perimeters. “We’re just now getting into municipalities,” said Kenneth Winter, ATC’s director of systems engineering.

By incorporating a video camera in a remotely controlled, pan-tilt speaker, harmless intruders can be chased off without resorting to deploying a security guard. Flashlights and laser “dazzlers” can also be mounted.

Public address systems are moving beyond whooping tornado alarms. Acoustic Technology Inc., of Boston, is developing wireless emergency warning systems that can be controlled by mouse click at either central or mobile control stations. ATI has configured public address systems for the naval base at Groton, Conn., and McGuire Air Force Base, N.J.

The move to wireless is critical, as warning systems must work independent of cables or monitoring facilities that could be destroyed in a fire or explosion. ATI also makes solar-powered systems.

With the correct software, automated announcements can be integrated. Rather than simple tones, recorded instructions can be given. When a public address alert is triggered, a host of automatic contact mobile phone and pager numbers can be dialed.

The company also offers modeling programs to help customers configure tower arrays to reach the entire area in need of coverage. This is vital for complying with government safety regulations at places with sensitive infrastructure, as well as for communities with homeland security or natural disaster concerns.

National Guard Tries to Rehab its Drug War Mission

National Guard officials said they are willing to step up efforts on the U.S. government’s “war on drugs,” even though the effort has faded from many radar screens during the chaos and fury of the “global war on terror.”

“The Department of Defense’s number-one priority is terrorism, so we have to adjust and gear counter-drug operations toward that priority,” said Air Force Col. Earl Bell, chief of the Guard’s counter-drug programs.

Bell’s division plans to become more involved in anti-narcotics missions and coordinate federal and local law enforcement efforts.

Among the priorities is to fuse intelligence between the military and other agencies, and launch pilot projects at federally designated “high intensity drug trafficking areas,” including the southwest U.S. border.

“The Guard has to become a catalyst for synchronized operations and cooperation,” said Army Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau. “An unprecedented collaboration between agencies at the local, state and federal level will build a support authority capable of being proactive, not reactive, to the war on drugs.”

About 2,500 soldiers and airmen are now involved in the Guard’s counter-drug program, which was formed in 1990. Operations range from providing air support for police raids to visiting elementary schools.

Military efforts overseas have overshadowed these operations, officials said. Funding has been on a steep decline in recent years and more than 1,300 positions have been cut since 1999. “Previously, the Guard has waited for a call to action and dutifully fulfilled those requests,” said Bell. “Now we may need to emphasize exactly what we can offer other agencies and work together more.”

Department of Defense officials have repeatedly defended the military’s role in counter-narcotics missions by linking drug money with international terrorist networks.

“Narco-terrorism is truly a threat to our security at home,” said Blum. “The National Guard will be an important player in this fight against it.”

Radiation Detectors Fall Short of Standards

Most portable radiation detectors perform well enough to meet new federal standards, but others provide inaccurate readings for some types of radiation, according to recent government tests.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology evaluated 31 commercially available detectors used by first responders and security personnel to test for radioactivity. Those threats have different signatures, and therefore require detectors that are flexible.

“If you have a wide energy range, you are able to determine exposure more accurately for a wide range of radioactive materials,” Leticia Pibida, a physicist at NIST who authored the report, told National Defense.

The experiment used carefully calibrated NIST machines to calculate the value of radioactive material, and then compared results from the commercial machines to see how closely the data meshed.

Researchers compared the devices’ exposure rate readings to NIST measurements for different energy and intensity levels. The responses of the majority of the detectors agreed with NIST-measured values, within acceptable uncertainties, during tests with gamma rays, the report found.

However, low energy X-rays measurements were not up to par. Readings by 14 detectors were 40 to 100 percent below the value of NIST testing equipment. “The deviations were much larger than those stated in manufacturers’ specifications,” Pibida noted in her report.

The equipment was being tested to see if it met requirements established by the American National Standards Institute, adopted by the Department of Homeland Security in 2004.

“Most of the instrumentation that exists in the market today has been designed for … occupational monitoring and laboratory use where, generally, the radionucleotide to be detected or measured is known,” she wrote. “[In a lab,] corrections to the instrument’s reading could be made, if necessary.”

But the first responders who use portable units cannot be bothered with delicate calibrations even if they were trained to do so, Pibida said, since the type of radiation they are looking for is unknown.

The radiation detectors of the future will have to be able to operate under a wide range of environments and energies. For now, Pibida suggests greater transparency from suppliers.

“Manufacturers need to do a better job of characterizing their instruments and providing users with better information about their detector’s response and performance,” read Pibida’s paper, contained the May issue of the journal Health Physics.

Results and recommendations will be furnished to the Department of Homeland Security for its use in setting up a program for certifying detectors.

Response Units Get Command Vehicles, With a Catch

National Guard will receive adequate funds in the short term to respond to domestic weapons of mass destruction attacks, but some long-term resources appear to be lacking, said Col. Camille Nichols, project manager responsible for buying gear for the Guard’s Civil Support Teams.

The teams were formed by the Guard to provide a quick reaction force to respond to domestic attacks with biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear weapons. When certification is complete, every state, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia, will have a civil support team. California, as directed by Congress, will have two.

Among the teams’ pressing needs are command-and-control vehicles that can establish field communications with local and federal responders while in a hazardous environment. A network of satellite communications, encrypted phones and handheld radiofrequency gear will link the vehicle to the outside world.

Nichols warned that research, development and testing funds for these mobile command centers will drop to zero after 2006. She also cited figures showing that the $54 million allocated in 2006 for the vehicles is eliminated by 2008.

“It scares people,” she told the audience of a recent defense industry conference. “There’s a lot of zeros.”

Aside from the long-term support of the command vehicles, the Civil Support teams are getting adequate support, Nichols said.

The office will be spending $4 million to $5 million a year to upgrade the equipment, she said. Priority items include individual protection gear that can filter out all agents, mobile analysis tools and new gear that would allow suited teams to work in “hot zones” for long periods.

Back To Top