Vadum Podcast – Episode 001
Vadum is a multi-disciplinary team of engineers, scientists and veterans committed to delivering revolutionary technology solutions to protect US military personnel and platforms. In this first episode, Vadum CEO Aaron Walker discusses Vadum’s humble beginnings supporting the counter IED mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and the path into Directed Energy systems, Cognitive Electronic Warfare capabilities, and the challenges of countering drones at scale.
View Transcript
Vadum Podcast — Episode 001
Marc:
Hello, and welcome to the inaugural edition of the Vadum Podcast. We’re here with Aaron Walker, founder and CEO of Vadum. Hello, Aaron.
Aaron:
Hello, Marc.
Marc:
To get started, why don’t you tell us how Vadum came to be?
Aaron:
Sure. It was 2004. I had been in graduate school at North Carolina State for a couple of years, working on my PhD. All of my work was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Lab on a variety of topics. One of those topics involved combating roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices (IEDs), in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While performing that work, another student and I had the opportunity to work on a U.S. Navy base near D.C. focused on countering roadside bomb threats. We identified an opportunity to form a company to continue that research and put products into service. Without a lot of planning, we started the company out of my home office.
Our first contracts were with a Navy group to develop test equipment that could perform electronic forensics on bombs discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal was to automate the process of understanding how these devices worked. That’s how Vadum began.
Marc:
When you say “electronic forensics,” how does that differ from other kinds of investigations on explosives?
Aaron:
The devices were approached in a way similar to how criminal enterprises are investigated. The FBI had a big role in the counter-IED fight, so there were strong criminal forensics aspects involved. The Department of Defense treated the networks behind IEDs as organized crime operations, with different layers — people who built the bombs, those who funded them, emplaced them, or triggered them.
The forensics effort tried to uncover evidence like fingerprints or construction techniques that could link devices to specific bomb makers. There weren’t thousands of builders — just small cells across regions — and identifying their “signatures” helped trace where devices came from. The goal was to locate the bomb makers and stop the threat at its source before devices reached the battlefield.
Marc:
And which part of that overall effort was Vadum’s contribution?
Aaron:
There were two main parts. The electronic forensic side involved characterizing devices that were often RF-initiated — using radio frequencies to detonate them remotely. The equipment we built helped determine what frequencies and initiation signals were being used. By cataloging those details, countermeasures could be optimized for the specific threats being encountered.
Marc:
So this was work done after explosions occurred or while detecting new ones?
Aaron:
Mostly before detonation. Many devices were discovered before going off. Even then, detection was often manual — soldiers joked that the best sensor was the “Mark 1 Eyeball.” Personnel would notice something suspicious, stop their convoy, and investigate. They’d recover or disarm devices, or find caches of bombs being prepared. The electronic components often survived, allowing us to analyze how they were triggered.
Marc:
What did that process look like in the field?
Aaron:
Whenever a device was found — whether exploded or not — it was treated like a crime scene. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams rendered it safe and cataloged all components: the explosive, the electronics, the initiation system. We developed tools to help those teams rapidly capture data in the field.
As the scale of the problem grew, the FBI took charge of large-scale forensics at their facilities, processing thousands of recovered devices. The Navy group we worked with was deeply involved as a technical support organization for EOD operations, and that’s how Vadum became connected.
Some of our first contracts involved developing the next generation of electronic jammers under a program called J-CREW. We built digital modeling and simulation tools to evaluate how jammers performed against different battlefield threats. So we worked both on the forensic side and on developing countermeasure technologies.
Marc:
What years did this work span?
Aaron:
We started in 2004, and most of our IED-related work continued through 2007 and 2008 during the troop surge in Iraq. As the wars wound down and the IED threat decreased, we pivoted toward more traditional electronic warfare, analytics, and other defense technologies.
Marc:
So as the IED threat declined, you looked at your existing capabilities and realized you’d been doing a lot of RF signal analysis — essentially electronic warfare, just in a different form?
Aaron:
Exactly. We had always done RF-focused work. Modeling IED threats and countermeasures gave us deep expertise in communication systems, jamming, and electronic countermeasures. That made electronic warfare a natural next step. We also had strong analytics skills in signal processing and behavioral modeling, which translated well into new defense domains.
Marc:
Somewhere in that transition came the Chipmunk system. Can you tell us about that?
Aaron:
Yes. The Chipmunk’s origin was toward the end of our counter-IED focus. There was a system called the Jackal — a vehicle-mounted countermeasure — but it wasn’t reliable. Its core components weren’t rugged enough for real-world conditions.
The Army wanted a solid-state replacement using high-power microwaves. We designed a new system from the ground up, addressing the reliability issues and improving effectiveness. It demonstrated excellent performance neutralizing certain classes of IEDs at a distance.
As the wars wound down, attention shifted, but the Army remained interested in a handheld version of that technology — what became the Chipmunk, a compact high-power microwave system for defeating IEDs.
Marc:
Could a system like that be useful for countering drones today?
Aaron:
That’s a great question. Just as there wasn’t one solution for IEDs, there’s no single silver bullet for drones. The counter-IED problem was relatively narrow in scope, while the drone threat is far more diverse. Some techniques overlap, but others need adaptation. Chipmunk-like systems could have utility, but whether it’s the right tool depends on the specific type of drone and mission context.
Marc:
So Vadum has a wide range of capabilities that can be applied to different problems as they evolve — it’s not about building solutions in search of problems, but being ready to contribute to solving real ones.
Aaron:
Exactly. Big national security challenges — whether IEDs, hypersonics, or counter-UAS — never have one-size-fits-all solutions. You need layered defenses, and cost-effective approaches that scale with the threat. One key lesson is that you can’t rely only on expensive, exquisite systems to counter inexpensive threats. You need proportional countermeasures that allow broad deployment and sustainable defense.
Marc:
Makes sense. That’s a good place to wrap up today’s episode. Aaron, thanks for joining us.
Aaron:
Thanks, Marc. Good to be here.
Marc:
Hello, and welcome to the inaugural edition of the Vadum Podcast. We’re here with Aaron Walker, founder and CEO of Vadum. Hello, Aaron.
Aaron:
Hello, Marc.
Marc:
To get started, why don’t you tell us how Vadum came to be?
Aaron:
Sure. It was 2004. I had been in graduate school at North Carolina State for a couple of years, working on my PhD. All of my work was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Lab on a variety of topics. One of those topics involved combating roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices (IEDs), in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While performing that work, another student and I had the opportunity to work on a U.S. Navy base near D.C. focused on countering roadside bomb threats. We identified an opportunity to form a company to continue that research and put products into service. Without a lot of planning, we started the company out of my home office.
Our first contracts were with a Navy group to develop test equipment that could perform electronic forensics on bombs discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal was to automate the process of understanding how these devices worked. That’s how Vadum began.
Marc:
When you say “electronic forensics,” how does that differ from other kinds of investigations on explosives?
Aaron:
The devices were approached in a way similar to how criminal enterprises are investigated. The FBI had a big role in the counter-IED fight, so there were strong criminal forensics aspects involved. The Department of Defense treated the networks behind IEDs as organized crime operations, with different layers — people who built the bombs, those who funded them, emplaced them, or triggered them.
The forensics effort tried to uncover evidence like fingerprints or construction techniques that could link devices to specific bomb makers. There weren’t thousands of builders — just small cells across regions — and identifying their “signatures” helped trace where devices came from. The goal was to locate the bomb makers and stop the threat at its source before devices reached the battlefield.
Marc:
And which part of that overall effort was Vadum’s contribution?
Aaron:
There were two main parts. The electronic forensic side involved characterizing devices that were often RF-initiated — using radio frequencies to detonate them remotely. The equipment we built helped determine what frequencies and initiation signals were being used. By cataloging those details, countermeasures could be optimized for the specific threats being encountered.
Marc:
So this was work done after explosions occurred or while detecting new ones?
Aaron:
Mostly before detonation. Many devices were discovered before going off. Even then, detection was often manual — soldiers joked that the best sensor was the “Mark 1 Eyeball.” Personnel would notice something suspicious, stop their convoy, and investigate. They’d recover or disarm devices, or find caches of bombs being prepared. The electronic components often survived, allowing us to analyze how they were triggered.
Marc:
What did that process look like in the field?
Aaron:
Whenever a device was found — whether exploded or not — it was treated like a crime scene. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams rendered it safe and cataloged all components: the explosive, the electronics, the initiation system. We developed tools to help those teams rapidly capture data in the field.
As the scale of the problem grew, the FBI took charge of large-scale forensics at their facilities, processing thousands of recovered devices. The Navy group we worked with was deeply involved as a technical support organization for EOD operations, and that’s how Vadum became connected.
Some of our first contracts involved developing the next generation of electronic jammers under a program called J-CREW. We built digital modeling and simulation tools to evaluate how jammers performed against different battlefield threats. So we worked both on the forensic side and on developing countermeasure technologies.
Marc:
What years did this work span?
Aaron:
We started in 2004, and most of our IED-related work continued through 2007 and 2008 during the troop surge in Iraq. As the wars wound down and the IED threat decreased, we pivoted toward more traditional electronic warfare, analytics, and other defense technologies.
Marc:
So as the IED threat declined, you looked at your existing capabilities and realized you’d been doing a lot of RF signal analysis — essentially electronic warfare, just in a different form?
Aaron:
Exactly. We had always done RF-focused work. Modeling IED threats and countermeasures gave us deep expertise in communication systems, jamming, and electronic countermeasures. That made electronic warfare a natural next step. We also had strong analytics skills in signal processing and behavioral modeling, which translated well into new defense domains.
Marc:
Somewhere in that transition came the Chipmunk system. Can you tell us about that?
Aaron:
Yes. The Chipmunk’s origin was toward the end of our counter-IED focus. There was a system called the Jackal — a vehicle-mounted countermeasure — but it wasn’t reliable. Its core components weren’t rugged enough for real-world conditions.
The Army wanted a solid-state replacement using high-power microwaves. We designed a new system from the ground up, addressing the reliability issues and improving effectiveness. It demonstrated excellent performance neutralizing certain classes of IEDs at a distance.
As the wars wound down, attention shifted, but the Army remained interested in a handheld version of that technology — what became the Chipmunk, a compact high-power microwave system for defeating IEDs.
Marc:
Could a system like that be useful for countering drones today?
Aaron:
That’s a great question. Just as there wasn’t one solution for IEDs, there’s no single silver bullet for drones. The counter-IED problem was relatively narrow in scope, while the drone threat is far more diverse. Some techniques overlap, but others need adaptation. Chipmunk-like systems could have utility, but whether it’s the right tool depends on the specific type of drone and mission context.
Marc:
So Vadum has a wide range of capabilities that can be applied to different problems as they evolve — it’s not about building solutions in search of problems, but being ready to contribute to solving real ones.
Aaron:
Exactly. Big national security challenges — whether IEDs, hypersonics, or counter-UAS — never have one-size-fits-all solutions. You need layered defenses, and cost-effective approaches that scale with the threat. One key lesson is that you can’t rely only on expensive, exquisite systems to counter inexpensive threats. You need proportional countermeasures that allow broad deployment and sustainable defense.
Marc:
Makes sense. That’s a good place to wrap up today’s episode. Aaron, thanks for joining us.
Aaron:
Thanks, Marc. Good to be here.