Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Army Shuns System To Counter RPG Attacks

Very disturbing.

WASHINGTON - Rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, are a favorite weapon of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are cheap, easy to use and deadly.

[...]

Sixteen months ago, commanders in Iraq began asking the Pentagon for a new system to counter RPGs and other anti-tank weapons.

Last year, a special Pentagon unit thought it found a solution in Israel — a high-tech system that shoots RPGs out of the sky. But in a five-month exclusive investigation, NBC News has learned from Pentagon sources that that help for U.S. troops is now in serious jeopardy.

The system is called “Trophy,” and it is designed to fit on top of tanks and other armored vehicles like the Stryker now in use in Iraq.

Trophy works by scanning all directions and automatically detecting when an RPG is launched. The system then fires an interceptor — traveling hundreds of miles a minute — that destroys the RPG safely away from the vehicle.

Trophy is the brainchild of Rafael, Israel’s Armament Development Authority, which has conducted more than 400 tests and found that the system has “well above [a] 90 percent” probability of killing RPGs and even more sophisticated anti-tank weapons, according to reserve Col. Didi Ben Yoash, who helped develop the system. Ben Yoash says he is “fully confident” that Trophy can save American lives.


Read that carefully. Israel has fully tested the system. Keep that in mind.

And officials with the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation (OFT) agree. Created in 2001 by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, OFT acts as an internal “think tank” for the Pentagon and is supposed to take a more entrepreneurial — and thereby less bureaucratic — approach to weapons procurement and other defense issues, and to get help to troops in the field more quickly. OFT officials subjected Trophy to 30 tests and found that it is “more than 98 percent” effective at killing RPGs.


Read that carefully as well. The Pentegon think tank says it is 98% effective.

As a result, OFT decided to buy several Trophies — which cost $300,000-$400,000 each — for battlefield trials on Strykers in Iraq next year.

That plan immediately ran into a roadblock: Strong opposition from the U.S. Army. Why? Pentagon sources tell NBC News that the Army brass considers the Israeli system a threat to an Army program to develop an RPG defense system from scratch.

The $70 million contract for that program had been awarded to an Army favorite, Raytheon. Raytheon’s contract constitutes a small but important part of the Army’s massive modernization program called the Future Combat System (FCS), which has been under fire in Congress on account of ballooning costs and what critics say are unorthodox procurement practices.


A $70 million contract is blocking this system from being implemented.

Col. Donald Kotchman, who heads the Army’s program to develop an RPG defense, acknowledges that Raytheon’s system won’t be ready for fielding until 2011 at the earliest.


If the system works - Israel and the Pentegon say it does, why won't it be ready for 5 years?

That timeline has Trophy’s supporters in the Pentagon up in arms. As one senior official put it, “We don’t really have a problem if the Army thinks it has a long-term solution with Raytheon. But what are our troops in the field supposed to do for the next five or six years?”

Kotchman, however, says the Army is doing everything prudent to provide for the protection and safety of U.S. forces and insists the Israeli system is not ready to be deployed by the U.S. “Trophy has not demonstrated its capability to be successfully integrated into a system and continue to perform its wartime mission,” he says.

That claim, however, is disputed by other Pentagon officials as well as internal documents obtained by NBC News. In an e-mail, a senior official writes: “Trophy is a system that is ready — today... We need to get this capability into the hands of our warfighters ASAP because: (1) It will save lives!”

Officials also tell NBC News that according to the Pentagon’s own method of measuring a weapons system’s readiness, Trophy is “between a 7 and an 8” out of a possible score of 9. Raytheon’s system is said to be a “3.”

So why would the Army block a solution that might help troops?

“There are some in the Army who would be extremely concerned that if the Trophy system worked, then the Army would have no need to go forward with the Raytheon system and the program might be terminated,” says Steven Schooner, who teaches procurement law at both George Washington University and the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s School.

Trophy’s supporters inside the Pentagon are more blunt. As one senior official told NBC News, “This debate has nothing, zero, to do with capability or timeliness. It’s about money and politics. You’ve got a gigantic program [FCS] and contractors with intertwined interests. Trophy was one of the most successful systems we’ve tested, and yet the Army has ensured that it won’t be part of FCS and is now trying to prevent it from being included on the Strykers” that OFT planned to send to Iraq.

For families of soldiers like Denny Miller, any delay in getting help to the troops is unthinkable.

As Miller’s mother, Kathy, put it, “Do they have children over there? Do they have husbands or wives over there? They need to sit back and look at it maybe from a different angle. I just think it's ridiculous!”

The Pentagon is now trying to interest the Marine Corps in testing Trophy. But because of Army opposition, there are currently no plans to send the system to Iraq.


This is a very strange story, if it is true, the Bush administration will be getting hit hard with this soon because frankly this story stinks to high heaven.

Crossposted from FreeRepublicans.com

Comments

Avatar for LoadTheMule

If this is true--and my military experience antennae tell me it may very well be--it’s a frigging shame and somebody needs to be hung from the nearest yardarm.  Again, if true, it’s a classic example of the bureaucracy gone crazy; boiling down to, “We won’t save lives now because we’re planning to spend $70,000,000 to save them in 2011.”

It’s not a pity, it’s criminal.  I’ve already called my congressman and senators.  Please do the same.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 06:50 am
Avatar for The Whistler

LTM:  I would blame Congress and the Administration.  Congress has not set proper priorities, preferring pork to supporting OUR troops in HARMS WAY. 

The troops deserve the best.

The Whistler on September 6, 2006 at 06:54 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Whistler,

The problem is bigger than that.  The military (all branches) procurement system is a Rube Goldberg nightmare.  The horror stories I could tell you are legion.  You think ex-congresscritters get on the ‘lobbyist’ gravytrain after their tenure?  You ought to see the sweet deals retired procurement officers (especially O-6s and above) get from military contractors.  It’s enough to make you want to puke.

The safety, care, feeding, and equiping of our fighting forces is not their first priority.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 07:02 am
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

The troops deserve the best.

This is why conservatives should NEVER talk about cutting the Defense Budget. 

$400,000 per unit?  Big deal! Cruise missiles cost over a million per.

I’m for the war, but if we can’t spend $400,000 to protect the troops that are fighting for us, maybe we shouldn’t be asking them to do so if we aren’t willing to protect them.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 07:02 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

It’s not a pity, it’s criminal.

I would blame Congress and the Administration.

You ought to see the sweet deals retired procurement officers (especially O-6s and above) get from military contractors.

This administration does not have our troop’s or our country’s best interest as a priority.
Follow the tread back to the beginning when they cut and ran in Tora Bora through the generals asking for more troops to invade Iraq. Which became a liability as they blew through the not so might Fedayeen Saddam and left unsecured towns behind, to be taken over by opposition militias we are now fighting and weapons depots left behind unguarded, later looted and you know at whom those weapons are being fired at. Remember the soldier who confronted Rummy about armor? What about the polluted water, DU exposure, extended tours of duty, stop loss tours, third and fourth tours?
bushco can not be trusted to provide even the smallest increment of safety.

I am soberly glad to see some of you coming to the same conclusion.

realitybasedbob on September 6, 2006 at 08:05 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

This administration does not have our troop’s or our country’s best interest as a priority.

To lay this particular problem at the doorstep of the current administration (as if the bureaucratic military procurement system sprang full-bloom from the womb on 01/20/2001 is so abysmally ignorant and partisan as to be beyond galactically stupid.

I am not cutting the Bush administration any slack in the matter...they should be profoundly ashamed.  On the other hand, the current procurement debacle shifted into high gear during the Vietnam War and hasn’t looked back since.  No administration since Kennedy’s has clean hands when it comes to military procurement.  Don’t posit otherwise.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 08:17 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

I am not cutting the Bush administration any slack in the matter...they should be profoundly ashamed.

It’s not a pity, it’s criminal.

Regards

realitybasedbob on September 6, 2006 at 08:24 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

bushco can not be trusted to provide even the smallest increment of safety.

Take your head out of your ass.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 08:40 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

It’s not a pity, it’s criminal.

realitybasedbob on September 6, 2006 at 08:43 am

Free: “...if it is true...”

I think that says it all.  Ever willing to try to take out a hit on the Administration, eh?  Notice that the resident lefties aren’t concerned with whether it’s true or not; they have more material with which to play “Get the President”.


The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

robert108 on September 6, 2006 at 08:46 am
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

I think that says it all. Ever willing to try to take out a hit on the Administration, eh? Notice that the resident lefties aren’t concerned with whether it’s true or not; they have more material with which to play “Get the President”.

This isn’t even so much an indictment of the President as it is of the Military-Industry Complex.

This is EXACTLY the kindof thing Eisenhower warned us about in this speech.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 08:59 am

Free: To quote you: “...if it’s true...”


The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

robert108 on September 6, 2006 at 09:01 am
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

Free: To quote you: “...if it’s true...”

Yes, if the media’s reporting of this is correct, and it is picked up and made a deal of any where near like the Ports Debackle was, then it will be a major problem for the party.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 09:05 am

Free: By what you said, the fault, the real crime here, lies with those who spread this information as the truth, when it isn’t.  You are one of them.  There was no real “Ports debacle”; it was a creation of the lying MSM.  Like the phony Plame affair, this is just another version of “Get the President”.


The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

robert108 on September 6, 2006 at 09:09 am
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

There was no real “Ports debacle”; it was a creation of the lying MSM.

The MSM hardly picked up the Ports story....the Conservative Media (Human Event, World Net Daily, News max) did.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 09:12 am
Avatar for another boob

I’m a lefty so I’m way to dumb to grasp the concept of bureaucracy properly.  I can’t fathom that perhaps this story is an example of the corruption of the Army procurement system, rather, I choose to lay this at the feet of people who not only may be unaware of the problem, but appear to of the mind (at least in the DoD) that the system is a) effective and b) desirable.  But I’m a leftist trash talking ass so I can’t be troubled with fact and logic when assumption and attacking those I despise is all I really care about.  So - Damn that Bush!  He needs to answer for this! It’s ALL his fault!  Oh! And ONLY the Republicans in congress! Not the Democrats. Nooooo.  I hate them, so it’s theif fault. Trust me with making the big people decisions now!!!!!

another boob on September 6, 2006 at 09:36 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

This isn’t even so much an indictment of the President as it is of the Military-Industry Complex.

You’re not only a partisan troll, you’re a liar.  If the above is true, why did you say:

This administration does not have our troop’s or our country’s best interest as a priority.

bushco can not be trusted to provide even the smallest increment of safety.

I am soberly glad to see some of you coming to the same conclusion.

All of which just serves to point out why no one can have a reasoned discussion with you.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 09:36 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

r108

There was no real “Ports debacle”; it was a creation of the lying MSM.

Care to expand on this once I get my popcorn?

MikeAdamson on September 6, 2006 at 09:38 am
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

Loadthe Mule,

You’re not only a partisan troll, you’re a liar. If the above is true, why did you say:

This administration does not have our troop’s or our country’s best interest as a priority.

bushco can not be trusted to provide even the smallest increment of safety.

I am soberly glad to see some of you coming to the same conclusion.


That wasn’t me, Load the Dumbass.  I wrote the original post. 

You quoted Reality Based Bob - Mr. Load the Dumbass.

Know who your quoting.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 09:43 am
Rob
Rob
19961 comments
Send a private message

This is way off topic, but…

There was no real “Ports debacle”; it was a creation of the lying MSM.

There was a debacle over the ports alright, but it was created by Democrats who were being less than truthful and Republicans who were overreacting to the subsequent misleading press coverage.

The UAE is already running an air shipping terminal in New York.  The vast majority of our ports are already run by foreign powers.  Granting this Dubai-based company a contract to control some of our ports was nothing new.

The Democrats simply jumped on it as an easy wedge issue they could use to try to beat up the Republicans on the strong issues: national security.  Their allies in the media fanned the flames and fools across the country bought into the hype.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 6, 2006 at 09:48 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Free,

My bad.  Please accept my apology.  I can only plead multi-taking at work and stupidity.

You’re correct of course (about Eisenhower’s warning).  I mistook it as a comment from bob trying to switch gears as he often does when faced with the ‘real’ reality.

Again, my apology.  I, too, would be properly insensed if--even mistakenly--mistook for rbb.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 09:52 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Freep,boob, I have personal expierence with R&D and Procurement Command from the ‘80s and ‘90s, this has far less to do with political affiliation than with buearuecratic inertia. One thing that must be considered in these type systems, how much collateral damage will it cause. Not just to civilians, also to dismounted troops. Armor does not operate in a vaccum, troops move in conjunction with tanks and AFVs in combat operations. There have been several systems put forward, most being of the “shotgun” effect. Also a system developed from the navy’s Phalanx anti-missle system. In both cases the weapons killed the incoming target, and any person within 100 meters of point of fire. If, and I emphazise IF, this Israeli system is a “projectile to projectile” type system, then by all means it needs to be deployed to our troops immediately. Next question, will it integrate with exsisting vehicle systems we are using? Or will we have to build all new, from the ground up, in order to use it? This means can I strap it onto my APC and plug it in and have it work RIGHT NOW, without a lengthy trial&error process. If this is a pull it of the shelf and use it kind of system then by all means lets do it. Fuck Raytheon and FCS.

2Hotel9 on September 6, 2006 at 09:55 am
Avatar for another boob

And since I’m a leftist partisan fool I don’t listen to the statements of those who were fighting the war in Afghanistan regarding Tora Bora.  The Afghanistan war was led by Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Michael “Rifle” DeLong. General Franks said it’s wrong to assume that bin Laden was hiding out in Tora Bora (Located on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan). Some intelligence reports put him there, he says, but others placed him in Pakistan, Kashmir or Iran--or at a lake 90 miles northwest of the Afghan city of Kandahar. Gen. DeLong concurs. “Was Osama bin Laden there?” he said in an interview. “I don’t know.”

The battle of Tora Bora took place in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan in late November and early December of 2001. Kabul had just fallen and a thousand or more al Qaeda leaders had fled to Tora Bora, where they holed up in the mountains’ vast network of caves.

Bin Laden used it as his headquarters in the mid-1990s. There were hundreds of tunnels, some many miles long, with exits over the border in Pakistan.

Afghanistan is full of rough country, and the jagged peaks of the Tora Bora area are about as rough as it gets--up to 13,000 feet and covered in snow and ice. “Surrounding” the area--in the sense of sealing it off--was impossible. If the U.S. had sent in a massive force, it would have run the risks of clashing with local tribesmen, killing civilians and alerting al Qaeda to the impending attack. Working with Afghan forces was “essential,” Gen. Franks has been quoted as saying. If U.S. forces had gone in alone, says Gen. DeLong, “arguably today we’d still be fighting in Afghanistan and there couldn’t have been a government.”

The U.S. commanders made the decision to embed a team of U.S. special forces and CIA agents into every Afghan unit. Like the Afghans, the Americans rode horses or, in the higher altitudes, walked. The special forces carried communications equipment that allowed them to talk to their commanders and to call in air power. Which they did with stunning effect--demolishing cave-openings and skipping bombs with delayed fuses deep inside. Hundreds of al Qaeda fighters died. No American life was lost.

Gen. Franks says that Pakistan rounded up “hundreds” of al Qaeda fighters as they straggled over the border. But Pakistan’s frontier forces were susceptible both to bribes and al Qaeda’s ideology and some of the fighters got through.

But hey, I’m a leftist partisan Democrat so none of that means anything to me.  I’d rather bash Bush as a proxy because the hard work of our troops that allowed Afghans to go to the polls in the first free election in their 5,000-year-old history and become a democratic nation but failed to net Osama bin Laden.  Sooooo - Bush failed! Tora Bora!  I know better than the military!!!

another boob on September 6, 2006 at 09:57 am
Avatar for The Whistler

How about giving credit to the military for defeating the Taliban in that logistical nightmare of a country?

Wow the Soviets couldn’t do it next door and we did it from a million miles away.  (Or something like that.) :^)

The Whistler on September 6, 2006 at 09:59 am
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

How about giving credit to the military for defeating the Taliban in that logistical nightmare of a country?

Define defeat.

We learned yesterday that they were merely displaced to a more powerful nation that is just as friendly: Down Falls Pakistan.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 10:04 am

MikeA:  As I pointed out, it bears striking similarity to the Plame affair, in that there was no underlying problem. It was a business deal for managing one aspect of the movement of freight through some of our ports.  It was never “a takeover of our ports by a foreign power"(one of the MSM lies), the Dubai company was not in control of terrorists(another MSM lie), and our port security was unchanged from what it has always been(another MSM lie).  Port security is run by our Coast Guard at home and our own inspection service, both at home and abroad, at the point of origin.  It was just another game of “Get the President”.  Like the Dems really care about port security; they favor open borders, don’t they?  This is a superficial analysis; there’s a lot more, but this is a blog entry, after all.  As I said, “the Ports Debacle” was a creation of the lying MSM.


The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

robert108 on September 6, 2006 at 10:04 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

And nice catch, Freep. I have been hearing rumbles of this from friends in the R&D and armored warfare community for about 8 months, though nothing concrete. Rafael has been fielding several systems, of varying degrees of effectiveness, for a number of years. The issue of collateral casualties has been the major sticking point. Janes has a less than detailed write up on Trophy from last May. It does seem very promising.

2Hotel9 on September 6, 2006 at 10:06 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Free,

Are you going to accept my heartfelt apology?

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 11:54 am
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

Free,

Are you going to accept my heartfelt apology?

Regards…

Sure, just don’t let it happen again.  These guys give me enough grief for what I actually do say the way it is.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 11:56 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Free,

I’ll do a better job of keeping the players straight in the future.  And--for what it’s worth--other than your abysmal lack of knowledge about economics I don’t have much of an issue with you. *grin*

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

And--for what it’s worth--other than your abysmal lack of knowledge about economics I don’t have much of an issue with you.

Must be because I was 6 credits from an Econ Minor at a State School.

FreeRepublicans.com on September 6, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Avatar for LoadTheMule

My cat had kittens in the oven, too.  But that don’t make ‘em biscuits.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on September 6, 2006 at 12:24 pm

Free: “Must be because I was 6 credits from an Econ Minor at a State School.”

Our educational system must be in even worse shape than I thought.  You don’t know even the basics of econ.


The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

robert108 on September 6, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Avatar for The Whistler

Maybe it’s not freep but the econ teachers.

Naw.

The Whistler on September 6, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

r108

As I pointed out, it bears striking similarity to the Plame affair, in that there was no underlying problem.

Isn’t this like saying Bush is similar to Saddam because they both have two legs? Talk about injecting a little partisan pizzazz but never mind.

It was a business deal for managing one aspect of the movement of freight through some of our ports.

Exactly right...couldn’t agree more.

It was never “a takeover of our ports by a foreign power"(one of the MSM lies), the Dubai company was not in control of terrorists(another MSM lie), and our port security was unchanged from what it has always been(another MSM lie).

Why stop at the MSM? Oh wait…

It was just another game of “Get the President”. Like the Dems really care about port security; they favor open borders, don’t they?

That’s better...so the MSM and the Democrats ganged up on the poor Administration. Not that conservative commentators didn’t do their best nor prominent Republicans for that matter.

As I said, “the Ports Debacle” was a creation of the lying MSM.

The next time you try to tell me that you don’t spin...well don’t.

MikeAdamson on September 6, 2006 at 02:25 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Here is an article on Trophy from Defense Update,this is from early this year. It is a bit more detailed than Janes piece of the same time.

2Hotel9 on September 7, 2006 at 07:32 am
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

We learned yesterday that they were merely displaced to a more powerful nation that is just as friendly: Down Falls Pakistan.

A nation with nuclear weapons and technology, which has been transferrd to other rogue nations (through a Dubai port incidently).  A nation with an extremely radicalized populace (more radicalized than Iraq under Saddam incidently..)

aNONOMISLY on September 7, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Avatar for radar

For the record, the NBC investigation is right on the money. Of course, I am just another anon f00l on the internet, so you don’t have to believe me. But the story is on the money (if lightly biased).

Here’s how it went down:
Soldiers: We are dying here. Some help?
Marine Corp: Our boys in the field are dying, what can we do?
Navy: Hey, we’ve been looking at APS technology and there is some good stuff out there. TROPHY is being tested right now.
Army: We’ve got a contract with Raytheon. Count us out.
Navy: Fine, we’ll do it ourselves. (goes off and acquires the system and begins integrating it)
Army: Hey, you can’t put that unapproved system on one of our vehicles!
Navy: Watch us. (puts it on vehicle, tests it, gives Army the finger)
Marine Corp: Hey, will that sucker fit on this vehicle? (points to other vehicle type)
Navy: Let’s find out, shall we?
Army: No fair! (starts throwing fit)
Navy: (rolls over and plays dead and takes the system off)

So, in a nutshell, that’s how it went down. Those pointing fingers at the Administration, I don’t know if your aim is correct. Don’t even know if they knew about the tests. I mean, I told them to invite the Prez and Rummy to see it in action, but I don’t think anyone listened to this peon. (at least I didn’t see them there...)

Maybe this investigation will stir up some action and get it out in the field. Props to the “sources” who brought media attention to this problem.

radar on September 7, 2006 at 02:02 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.