Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

No Trophy for NBC News

sheriff-stryker1.jpgLisa Myers (NBC News) conducted a special investigation into the Army's seemingly unwillingness to adopt an Israeli RPG defense system which has been successfully tested in field conditions. The "Trophy" system, produced by Rafael (and shown here on a Stryker vehicle), was cited by the DOD's Office of Force Transformation as a really good deal. But Army officials would rather wait five years for Raytheon to complete the development and testing of its "Quick Kill" RPG defense solution, which will be part of the Future Combat Systems program.

In part two of her investigation (which aired last night), she documented how the Army bent over backwards to ensure that Raytheon remained in the competition - not that there was a competition. The Army was supposed to have a shoot-off between the two systems, but because the Raytheon system was still on the drawing board, the Army canceled the shoot-off and issued a single-source selection for the Raytheon solution. I'm shocked... shocked to discover that a military acquisition office might be biased towards one of the largest U.S. defense firms. Why, I've never heard of such outlandish behavior. I declare, I do believe I have the vapors...

First of all, this might have been a good news report - in APRIL, when this issue was made public (see this DefenseTech post). Or maybe Lisa might have done an internet search and found Noah's Popular Mechanics article in August. Both articles discuss the Army's concern that, yes, this seems to be a good idea, but there are some outstanding issues:

"It is not just about giving [soldiers] an APS system. How do the soldiers work with it? How does it tie into the network? How do you know when to turn it on? When not to turn it on?" said Future Combat Systems program manager Brig. Gen. Charles Cartwright. "We could put something over there . . . overnight but have I got the logistics to be able to support," the technology.

Some of you may be familiar with David Drake's Hammer's Slammers - he has written a number of scifi novels about this mercenary tank regiment, which has nuclear-powered tanks and armored cars that move around like hovercrafts. The vehicles also feature an anti-projectile defense system which, when activated, shoots out like a shotgun to defeat the incoming projectile (also good for shredding light infantry in the way). Issue is, it can be set for manual rather than automatic. These concept of operation issues need to be worked out (also see Murdoc's take on this issue).

I have to tell you, Colonel Don Kotchman showed that he had clearly taken the "how to deal with the media" class that every acquisition manager has to take. Get a load of this:

Lisa Myers: Was the Raytheon system tested by the Pentagon?

Col. Donald Kotchman: The Army did not specifically test the Raytheon system.

Instead, Raytheon tested its own system this February.

Myers: How well did the Raytheon system do in its own testing?

Kotchman: I don't have that information.

Myers: Were there any Pentagon officials present for the Raytheon testing?

Kotchman: I do not know.
----------------
In May, a technical team was chosen and given the task of evaluating competing RPG defense systems. But here again, Raytheon had a leg up.

Myers: Do you know how many of the 21-person technical team worked for Raytheon?

Kotchman: To the best of my knowledge, none.

Army documents obtained by NBC News, however, reveal that nine of the 21 technical experts — as well as all the administrative personnel — were from Raytheon. The team ultimately concluded that of the seven RPG defense systems examined, Raytheon’s was “the clear winner.”

Raytheon’s “Quick Kill” solution — which the Army concedes will not be fielded before 2011 at the earliest — won out over Trophy, the Israeli system championed by the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation.

Myers: It appears as though Raytheon was allowed to select itself.

Kotchman: I don’t know that to be a fact, and so I really can't comment on it.

Priceless. Bravo, colonel, bravo. You survived the interview. Best that you can hope for. I have to say, this isn't news - that is to say, it's a shame that our acquisition process works this way, but it's normal procedure. Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex, we know he was right, but there's no way to fix the system short of finding a new set of honest congressmen and women, defense contractors who don't see dollar signs as the bottom line, and military acquisition officials who want to be promoted while in uniform and have a nice job when they retire.

-- Jason Sigger, crossposted at Armchair Generalist

UPDATE 8:58 AM: Noah here. While I appreciate Jason's shout-outs, the real credit should go to Defense News scoopmasters Greg Grant and Barbara Opall-Rome, who did most of the original reporting on this story. I just sorta played clean-up. Oh, and if all this hasn't satisfied your RPG defense fix, check out what Murdoc has to say.

UPDATE 6:48 PM: JH reminds us that there's another, potentially more interesting Israeli grenade-stopper out there. Ladies and gents: the Iron Fist.

Comments

Who knows the price of the system?

Posted by: Hall at October 8, 2008 09:11 AM


I played Maple Story for two years, only this number, bring me is happy, although it spent me a lot of maple mesos, happy lost, I would like to how to do. When I see that prompted the password is wrong, my tears down the keyboard. I told myself that it is system question; I can be one of the landings. I know that it is impossible. My number is lost in this way, after I no longer have, I lost it is forever.

Posted by: maple mesos at August 12, 2008 02:04 AM


The friend took me to the game, but she own was leaving the game. A person to game is boring, every day, I only know to upgrade and earn ro zeny. I can not sad dot this mess of feelings and moving. Once, the two boys for me quarreled utterly, until I leaved and tool sad. Later, I found a boy to married, I think perhaps all this to change, and I pray to become a reality, a few days after he disappeared. A person was playing a marriage number, what would it have taken place.

Posted by: ro zeny at August 12, 2008 02:01 AM


Three years ago, after friends introduced, I played the Rappelz game. At that time, I dazed and confused, I like to go my own way, I have a lot of rappelz rupees, but I became the most evil villains in the game. Until I encountered her, I found the meaning of survival.

Posted by: rappelz rupees at August 12, 2008 01:59 AM


Yesterday, because I miss you, I go back the game and I want to watch to see. The rohan crone that you give me is also in here. I unexpectedly met you; I think I should stay here because I still think around you. This afternoon, I let you played together me this night, you promised. In the evening I thought you would not have come, but I saw you really come, I really very happy.

Posted by: rohan crone at August 12, 2008 01:56 AM


I am an ordinary online game enthusiast. January, I walked inside into a new world called RF. In this new world inside, I find the feeling that all games there have never had. I also the first time spent money in the online to buy RF gold. I would like to put the feeling of the article inside, thank all the friends in RF, and wish you happy.

Posted by: rf gold at August 12, 2008 01:48 AM


Unwittingly, I now have to play Gaia more than three years, during the six months I have not played, it is because the equipment and gaia gold stolen. I am a hot personality, impulses, its own people, had been a game of the girls to beat. She brought me happy, but also brought troubles to me.

Posted by: gaia gold at August 12, 2008 01:46 AM


I played the Goonzu game for a few months, my heart had too many feelings, and this game is playing what in the end, playing goonzu gold or playing the feelings.

Posted by: goonzu gold at August 12, 2008 01:44 AM


My negative, as my boss’s brother was very sad. He said venting to find out the game we play games together, together fight monster, how to kill on how to kill. Later, we played the GuildWars game, my brother helped me apply a number, and she also bought some GW gold to me. Choose the name, I think a long time, in order to no longer immerse in the lovelorn, so I need to find individuals to love me, want to permanently, I hope that it is no longer the past fireworks fleeting. Finally, I choose love me 9 long time as my name. Brother saw and laughed; he said he hoped I will be happy. He let me go to play, beware of being cheated, do not give other people my phone and QQ.

Posted by: gw gold at August 12, 2008 01:42 AM


Ability to control the situation on whether the initiative has become a yardstick by. You can also buy potbs gold prove it. The game itself and its audience is not a direct rival between the tug-of-war contests, game aims to want to show the classic fencing in the occupied upper hand skills.

Posted by: potbs gold at August 6, 2008 12:38 AM


From novice to play is not too difficult, mainly Liandao a bit high, we should sell what ah, we should start to buy what the point, of course, has often been Qiangguai,Then we have no choice but to buy mesos, can also buy cheap mesos.

Posted by: cheap mesos at August 6, 2008 12:37 AM


rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 3, 2008 10:54 PM


Trophy has nothing to do with saving lives it has to do with winning a war.
Armor is a large expenditure and without it in CQB marine vs insurgents is about an equal fight considering numbers and logistics.
So armor is needed, but with a 3k or so missile taking out a multi million dollar tank, not to mention the training dollars that go into a tank crew and the cost to ship both tank + crew to war zone, it is plain to see something needs to be done to even thing up.
The idea behind armor is to make your army seem invincible, at the moment they are just a expensive sitting target.
Trophy is not needed to save live but to end the war... which will save lives

Posted by: Whytrophyisneeded at June 4, 2008 03:13 AM


nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 01:34 AM


I doubt many people want to hear this, but when it comes to military equipment, outsourcing makes a certain sense. Remember that the most vicious way the bad guys are getting at us is through our economy--it costs too much to build stuff here. It takes too long. I for one have long been impressed with the IDF--not so much the IAF, which for all its skill relies on sloppy seconds from the US, but the armored forces. Check out Raphael & Nimda links. My understanding is that even Israel prefers Iron Fist to Trophy, but Israel has long suffered from a lack of resources, financial & otherwise & gained from a superb capacity to adapt and innovate. They've developed brilliant light and (truly) modular automatic weapons platforms with land, naval & potential aerial applications. Nimda SPECIALIZES in taking Russian heavy weapons hulls (generously donated by the USSR through their Arab friends during the Six-Day War) & making them into effective, NATO-compatible fighting machines in various configurations. They've done the same with old US M-60s, British Centurions & whatever they've had available--even old M4s. The most numerous & effective example is probably the Achzarit, the original HAPC, which is based on old T-54/55 hulls. They do it with their own stuff, too. They do it better and cheaper. So buy from 'em. And stop being paranoid about China, everyone. China and the US are in a tar-baby relationship, economically speaking. Neither one of us can get too cranky with the other without destroying both our economies. They're Donald Trump circa mid-1980s. We're the bank. We own each other. Cozy, ain't it? Thank on more levels, gents.

Posted by: Graham Strouse at December 4, 2007 11:44 AM


See also, the following update:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16548471/

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at March 4, 2007 04:39 AM


I still saw no points as to how the Raytheon system is superior, and you excuse the blatant corruption by saying it can't be fixed. This is typical horse-hockey. You fix it by having zero tolerance for corruption, and heavy penalties for those that get caught. Maybe it's time for the country to start a 'war on corruption', since you hawk types are so fond on wars on verbs (unless what you are warring against is also paying for your illegal black-ops). Get real.

Posted by: Thoma Jefferson at March 4, 2007 04:29 AM


I still saw no points as to how the Raytheon system is superior, and you excuse the blatant corruption by saying it can't be fixed. This is typical horse-hockey. You fix it by having zero tolerance for corruption, and heavy penalties for those that get caught. Maybe it's time for the country to start a 'war on corruption', since you hawk types are so fond on wars on verbs (unless what you are warring against is also paying for your illegal black-ops). Get real.

Posted by: Thoma Jefferson at March 4, 2007 04:28 AM


As the mother of an Army son currently undergoing an abbreviated Georgia pine forest training for deployment as a Humvee driver in Iraqi deserts, I'm worried. What protection is the Army providing now for soldiers in Humvees, and is there something better? How does one support our troops on this issue?

Posted by: Proud but worried at September 26, 2006 09:50 AM


Anyone know if Trophy really works against a tandem warhead projectile like a PG-29V? Presumably the second charge is reasonably well-protected against premature detonation (otherwise it could be destroyed by the explosion of it's own first charge). In addition, it is relatively heavy and propelled by a powerful rocket motor. The greater momentum would make it harder to knock off course.

Posted by: Tortoise at September 14, 2006 03:39 AM


The other story this site seldom tells.

Our Arabic allies refuse to allow Israel Military Industry equipment on their soils. There was a small mention of this in a MSNBC story at the start of the last Iraq war.
We can not use or transport IMI ammo, equipment or technology on their soils. Gee Imagine that we actually respect our allies wishes.
Too bad lisa didn't do her homework.
D~W

Posted by: Draq Wraith at September 10, 2006 02:08 PM


Good Morning Robot Economist,

I find compareing the numbers of military killed by RPG's and IED's a little demeaning to our troops in Iraq. Although I can understand your point and I will admit to being more then a little biased on this issue since I have been on the receiving of an RPG (the were B-40's and B-41's in my time) as well as Recoiless Rifles and Mortars more times then I can remember and walked away mostly unscared execpt for the last time, I see little value in the number 130 with out also stating how many service personal have suffered amputations and head wounds but managed to survive.

Being in the military is a risky job with few tangable rewards. I do agree with your point that PRG's are an assigned risk and the military has to prioritize it's weapons programs and yes I agree IED's seem to be a more pressing problem the RPG's.

Personaly I think more agressive tacts on the part of the Americans in Iraq could go a long ways is dealing with RPG's. One tactic, like we used in Vietnam was to do more agressive dismounted patrols in area of known RPG activity. When we started moving around on foot among the locals on a regular basis a lot of good things started to happen.

About spelling, I would be the last here to object, he** I can't spell my own name half the time either, so what, as I see it it give those who have no counter to my argurment(s) to plat too.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at September 9, 2006 01:27 PM


Why didn't we buy the Trophy from an Isrealie company? Another reason is the Army follows a staute known as the Buy American Act, and they remember too well those that lost their careers when the Army bought berets from China. If Meyers and other reporters did their homework, the Office of Force Transformation and General Dynamics made the choice not to consider the spirit of this law when they went ahead and conducted the demonstration. It is about time the media stop putting a liberal spin on stories and start printing objective news. Any colonist publically talking about vunerabilities of our Army during the American Revolution would have been considered treasonists. They would be lucky not to be killed by an angry mob of Early Americans. Americans need to wake up and stop supporting these networks that put damaging stories about our military vulnerbilities on the airways. I am sure Rome experienced a similiar lack of nationalistic committment from its mass media just before they toppled as well.

Posted by: moorhouse at September 9, 2006 06:39 AM


"Myers said RPGs killed 130 servicemen and women in Iraq"

How many of those deaths were in vehicles that could have been equipped with TROPHY? I'd bet the vast majority of troops killed by RPGs were unmounted or in lightly armored vehicles.

Also, how many casualties would trophy have CAUSED, both in US troops and civilian bystanders, if it had been deployed in sufficiently large numbers?

Lisa Myers doesn't care, all she cares about, along with most others who take up stories like this, is trying to make the absurd claim that Bush and Rumsfeld are incompetent, and consequently we should all vote Democrat come November. That is what all these bullshit controversies are about people: politics.

Posted by: Kaltes at September 7, 2006 11:38 PM


Dude, the Lisa Myers story got play tonight on Keith Olbermann and Scarborough. Myers said RPGs killed 130 servicemen and women in Iraq - which doesn't seem like a lot compared to deaths caused by IEDs.

People need to realize that you can't apply an infinite number of systems to protect our troops. Army and Marine engineers must make trade-offs and balance its defense kits against relevant threat profiles.

Posted by: Robot Economist at September 7, 2006 07:38 PM


US Army Defends Decision Not To Buy General Dynamics System

By Rebecca Christie
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)—The U.S. Army on Wednesday defended its decision not to buy a General Dynamics Corp. (GD) system that defends tanks against rocket-propelled grenades by shooting back.

The Army has faced periodic criticism this year for its decision not to buy the Trophy defense system and rush it to Iraq. General Dynamics makes Trophy in partnership with Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd., which is backed by Israel’s defense ministry.

Army officials say tests haven’t proven a need for the system. But the service continues to face criticism that it is overlooking a potentially life-saving technology.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote Army Secretary Francis Harvey on Wednesday to ask why the system isn’t in use, after Trophy made the NBC News. Maine is home to two General Dynamics sites: a shipyard in Bath and a .50 caliber machine gun factory in Saco.

But the Army insists the system isn’t a good fit. When asked about the system Wednesday, Army spokesman Lt. Col. William Wiggins said the service already has measures in place to protect combat vehicles from RPG attacks. He said Defense Department tests of the Trophy system didn’t warrant a rush to send it to Iraq.

"The Army will take all prudent measures possible to protect its soldiers,"
Wiggins said. The tests "did not provide the kind of results that would say we’ve got to revamp our whole testing apparatus or infrastructure."

Right now, the Army is using slat armor to defend its combat vehicles from RPG hits. This armor is essentially a cage that absorbs a blast several feet away from troops inside.

In contrast, Trophy is an "active protection" system that shoots back at incoming grenades so they will explode at a distance. Raytheon Co. (RTN) is building a similar system, which beat out Trophy for a role in the Army’s $165 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program.

These types of systems have been shown to work in tests. But the Army has not yet figured out how it will use them.

For instance, the new systems raise big questions about collateral damage if the system misfired, or created a deadlier explosion than the RPG would have caused on its own. Also, the Army will need to design a supply chain and maintenance plan by the time Future Combat Systems reaches soldiers in the 2010s.

In April, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told reporters that the system needs to show "stability" before it is ready for the field. He said the Army isn’t against it, but also isn’t in a rush.

"How do we know this is the solution? Because the manufacturer says it is?"
Schoomaker said, when asked about Trophy at a Defense Writers Group breakfast.
"What we do want to do is make sure that what we put our precious dollars against work."

General Dynamics referred questions on the system to the Army.

Posted by: Paul at September 7, 2006 06:14 PM


Well, I don't think DU is a worry. DU is cool because it's hard enough to smash through armor, but you still have to put the force behind it to get through armor in the first place. You're not gonna get that from an RPG-sized launcher.

I think the "airbag" idea may be the best. When a launch is detected, a parachute-like device is fired out in the way. It doesn't have to destroy the RPG, all it has to do is deflect it. It really decreases the chance of friendly casualties (although, I suppose a guy could get all wrapped up in it and then have the rpg go off in his face).

Posted by: Brian at September 7, 2006 04:32 PM


I saw the Lisa Myers report. It is the typical sob story, how our guys in Iraq are not getting the "best" equipment needed to keep them alive; body armor, up-armor Humvees, etc. They are in a war zone, people will get killed. We can't protect them against all the threats (known or unknown) all the time, especially with a defensive posture in a complex 360 degree urban battlefield.

An active defense system will probably never work well in an infantry dismount situation, although re-active armor is not all that safe for troops either. It might be useful for roadside ambushes though. I think the shotgun/explosive approach is too cumbersome. The most appropriate system is one with high-powered lasers, but those are decades away from being fielded. We are stuck with passive/re-active armor, which has been enough, for now.

That said, I don’t think we can make these current armor solutions any more affective, so something new is needed. Is it possible for passive armor to defeat all threats? You probably would need six sided protection using armor with a RHAe thickness greater than 2000mm. That is not practical and economical to say the least. Current M1 has a 600-900mm RHAe thickness against kinetic energy and 800-1600mm RHAe thickness against chemical energy munitions. Damn EFP’s, tandem warhead RPG’s and top-attack ATGM’s. Let’s hope the insurgents don’t acquire DU projectiles.

Posted by: WarNerd at September 7, 2006 03:26 PM


I think overall, the Army is proceeding cautiously on this. There's nothing wrong with that, especially when we aren't in dire need of Trophy. Let's face it, we aren't getting hit by RPGs much in Iraq. Trophy doesn't protect against roadside bombs.

Raytheon? Well, that looks fishy. But just because there appears to be corruption doesn't mean they didn't make the right decision.

Posted by: Brian at September 7, 2006 02:58 PM


Byron - my apologies for misspelling your name. Twice it appears. When blogging from the office, I sometimes don't give my posts the editorial control they need.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 7, 2006 01:15 PM


I'd hope that Bryon doesn't find agreeing with me too distasteful - I care a lot about the safe our troops and the success of our military. I imagine my constant skepticism can be frustrating, but in the end, I can assure you that we're all playing on the same team.

Bryon also brings up a good point that my Army S&T coworkers have mentions as well - what is the capacity on Trophy and Quick Kill. Every test video I've seen involves about 2-3 RPGs fired in rapid sequence. What happens if a 4th is fired? Or a 5th? Does each interception negatively impact the system's detection capability?

Slat armor appears to be working for now, so I think the Army is right to approach active protection systems cautiously.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 7, 2006 01:12 PM


Good Morning Folks,

As much as it pains me I have to agree with "Robot Economist", he has come up with a major fault with Trophy, the friendly "Dismounts".

As a former Combat Infantryman I know first hand what it does to your morale when your "friendies?" are shooting at you, it can make you crabby for the whole day.

Another problem that was found with Trophy is that it can easly be defeated by multiple attacks.

The part of this story regarding Raytheon, and once again I must agree with "Robot Economist", stands on its own. Unfortunately this is the way the DoD does business and is in no small way driven by the concerns of senior officers who are the "Project Managers" and their post military careers.

ALLONS,
ByronSkinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at September 7, 2006 12:22 PM


Relying on foreign products is not a good solution, not even Israel which also makes foreign military sales to China, potential enemy of US. Imagine Pentagon bought weapons and relied on Chinese and Russian weapons. We do the opposite (put pressure) against European countries which attempts to sell weapons to unfriendly countries, such as Spain to Venezuela. The same thing could happen to us. It may be economic, but politically incorrect. We don't need Trophy, we need something that is secured in our hands, and with technical information kept in hands as well. Otherwise, if Trophy was ever to be sold to Russia and China, they would be able to reverse engineer it, and understand its capabilities. That means alot for counter measures.

Posted by: pedestrian at September 7, 2006 12:09 PM


Israeli armored fighting vehicles, including Merkava tanks, became separated from accompanying infantry screens in built-up areas in S. Lebanon, and were hit by RPGs (including the RPG-29) at very close ranges. It is rather doubtful if any existing self-protection system would have worked under these circumstances, especially if such system was set on a "manual" mode.

Posted by: LEP at September 7, 2006 09:20 AM


It does sound like a lot of the tanks that were taken out by Hezbollah were taken out with mines, not RPGs, which is what you get when you take on the enemy on turf that he's had the chance to prepare so well for your arrival. Somewhat gruesomely, it seems like a lot of the reports of Israeli troops being hit with RPGs involved dismounted troops. I was also waiting to see if there would be any mention of Trophy throughout the war, and didn't catch any, which, as I see it, could mean a) the system was effective and the IDF was wisely coy about it b) the system was ineffective and the IDF was wisely coy about it or c) the system was not used, for any of the reasons given above, and RAFAEL was wisely coy about it.

Posted by: Haninah at September 7, 2006 09:03 AM


No mention why the IDF didnt use Trophy in Lebanon? I bet for the same reasons -- they got troops on the ground around these tanks.

Posted by: David at September 7, 2006 08:45 AM


If TROPHY is so great then why were Israeli tanks being taken out left-and-right in Lebanon recently?

It is no crime for the US military to have a strong bias towards American contractors. Every other country does this unless they have no choice. It keeps American money in America, subject to US taxes, instead of lining the pockets of a foreign corporation.

The argument that the US military ought to be focused on casualty prevention and nothing else is short-sighted and foolish. The army already places a very high priority on preventing casualties.

If I had to pick between being protected by slat armor and TROPHY, I'd pick the slat armor. If TROPHY is a matter of saving weight and not a matter of saving lives, then the media needs to drop this "Raytheon lied, soldiers died" bullsh*t.

Posted by: Kaltes at September 7, 2006 08:43 AM


I'll agree that Raytheon's dealings on the Quick Kill system look pretty shady, but there are plenty of other reasons why the U.S. Army is hesitant to buy Trophy:

First, the correspondent seems to think that the Army isn't doing anything to protect the troops. The Army jumped on the cage armor that covers every Stryker as a inexpensive stop-gap measure a while ago.

Second, I am not certain of Trophy's feasbility. Sure, it stops RPGs, but interception creates a huge cloud of shrapnel about 10-15ft from the vehicle. This works great protecting a buttoned-up Stryker in unpopulated areas, but would make a bad problem worse for anyone near the vehicle. I think some acquisitions professionals in the Army see the same issue and are waiting for the concept to mature.

Third, committing to Trophy would probably cause problems down the road with FCS. Rafael will undoubtedly restrict the amount of tech data they release to the Army, which will hinder any attempt to integrate it into US systems (especially FCS).

Why rush a system that hasn't been proven in combat scenarios onto the battlefield when the Army has already dropped a lot of money on other countermeasures?

This obsession with fielding anything that offers "force protection capabilities" distracts from what an analysis of what is useful or practical on the battlefield. I'm afraid it will lead the Army and Marines to adopt immature systems that only end up creating larger problems in combat.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 7, 2006 08:32 AM


So perhaps it's a bit slow on the uptake, but isn't it good that a mainstream tv news outlet is actually reporting on this? Did I miss something where they did poor investigative work?

Posted by: geedeck at September 7, 2006 07:59 AM


MAybe the reason they are holding off purchasing an IDF solution is that they have already spent millions on their own version... contracts have been signed... targets set and jobs depend on it.

Its the same deal with all new inventions..

but thats how we learn as a species. Just cause you can buy something doesn't mean you ought to.

Posted by: Owen Higgins at September 7, 2006 07:44 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.