Is Army Putting Raytheon Profits Before Lives?

[SteveGrenard]

As of September 2006, 170 American lives have been lost to RPGs in the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. RAFAEL, the Israeli Armament development authority, has been testing a system to defend against such attacks, and have found it to be "well above 90%" effective in killing RPGs. This system, dubbed TROPHY, is an Active Protection System that utilizes small buckshot to disintegrate an incoming rocket.

The U.S. Army tested the system and found it to effective nearly 98.5% of the time, and the Office of Force Transformation agreed to purchase several at a cost of around $400,000 per unit for battlefield trials this year.

Yet according to an NBC News report, the U.S. Army has rejected the system. One may ask why, but it seems the answer may be simple: The Army has a $70 million contract with Raytheon to develop a similar system (part of the Army's massive modernization program dubbed Future Combat System), which won't be ready until at least 2011. NBC News asked pointed questions, but even Raytheon refused comment on whether that timetable is even accurate. NBC even has documents purporting to show that an Army General threatened a Navy engineer for recommending the TROPHY system.

The Israeli system is being marketed by General Dynamics, a U.S. company, and could even be doing the assembly work here in the U.S. Should the lives of our troops be traded for political favors to large contractors such as Raytheon?

http://www.omninerd.com/2007/01/11/news/1097

Similar reports and additional details at:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350869,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=32402

 

[Tony]

What, are you suggesting that the lives of our soldiers are more important than profit? You commie.

 

[This Guy]

If the allegation is true, there should be severe repercussions for those involved.

There are a couple of items in the source report that makes me wonder about the full accuracy of what we're being told though.

"Col. Didi Ben Yoash, a reservist in the Israeli Defense Forces who works for
Rafael, showed us one.

"Absolutely, this is an autoloader," he said.

How does he respond to U.S. Army claims that Trophy doesn't have an
autoloader?

"Well, this is an autoloader," he said.

Does it work?

I have an anti-matter phase shift human transporter in my basement. Want to see it?

What is the Israeli army's view of how much additional risk there is to the
troops?

"As far as we tested, it added at most 1 percent," says Nir. "Not a
significant risk."

How far did they test it?

Well, when it was in the shop, and disabled, no one was injured by it! Except that one guy that bumped his head on it.

Not saying these questions are show stoppers, just that they make me wonder about the details behind the facts.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The auto-loader was shown on NBC tonight as Lisa Meyers toured the plant where the Trophy is made. It was demonstrated to her but the viewer couldn't see details. It is not exactly rocket science; it looks sort of like a scoop holding the buckshot on a fulcrum which can be operated remotely from inside the tank or armored vehicle it is mounted on. Presumably it picks up the buckshot from a resevoir and then dumps it into the firing chamber of the device. Low tech.

 

[This Guy]

The auto-loader was shown on NBC tonight as Lisa Meyers toured the plant where the Trophy is made. It was demonstrated to her but the viewer couldn't see details. It is not exactly rocket science; it looks sort of like a scoop holding the buckshot on a fulcrum which can be operated remotely from inside the tank or armored vehicle it is mounted on. Presumably it picks up the buckshot from a resevoir and then dumps it into the firing chamber of the device. Low tech.

I'm no news reporter, but I think I would have added that to the written version. Would certainly have added credibility (IMO).

There is still the question of how well it works of course, but IMHO if the system works as well as indicated, the reloading would be a secondary issue.

I'm certainly interested in how this story pans out.

ETA: I re-read your description of the reloader. I now have a picture in my mind, of a sling shot mounted on a tank. With radar target acquisition

 

[SteveGrenard]

There is still the question of how well it works of course, but IMHO if the system works as well as indicated, the reloading would be a secondary issue.

While it is impossible to say how well the Trophy/israeli autoloader works, the re-loading issue is a biggie. That's because the targets of RPGs are usually armored vehicles or tanks which, themselves, are protecting the occupants inside (our troops). Without the auto-loader operable from inside the vehicle a soldier inside the vehicle would have to exit it to re-load and this makes such a person a target of snipers or machine gun fire. So the big no win question is should a soldier inside exit the vehicle to reload the device to protect the vehicle (and its occupants) from an RPG and themselves become a target or is it better to take a chance with the RPG?

Hence the auto-loader is a very important part of the equation since by having a remotely operated auto-loader it would not be necessary for an ocucpant of the vehicle to expose themselves in order to re-load it.

The argument is the US Army tested the device including the autoloader, the IDF has started to integrate it into its own systems and people within our own military who have tested and studied the technology have recommended it ....but according to NBC the decision not to acquire it was made without consideration of these facts while pointing to Raytheon's contract, worth $70 million, to build a similar device which they say won't be available until 2011. The Trophy is available now.

ETA: I re-read your description of the reloader. I now have a picture in my mind, of a sling shot mounted on a tank. With radar target acquisition

Clearly the whole concept is low-tech. Shoot an arc of buck shot against an oncoming RPG and detonate it before it reaches target. The next step up from Silly String. But it works.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Clearly the whole concept is low-tech. Shoot an arc of buck shot against an oncoming RPG and detonate it before it reaches target. The next step up from Silly String. But it works.

Yes, and in MOUT, it hits a lot of stray people at random. So, its use is finite to non MOUT environments, unless one does not give a crap about CD. Collateral Damage. Unintentionally killing and injuring those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ya see, the past 4 years, CD has been a HUGE issue. How does this change with a new weapon? It doesn't.

Weapon still looks interesting.

DR

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

If anyone wants to read General Sorenson's full congressional testimony, it is available here (.pdf file). It isn't all that long, but it does raise some points that perhaps put this issue into a bit more perspective than we are getting:

Every Soldier is important and each loss of life is tragic. The Army has taken significant steps to counter the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) threat for the past 35 years and will continue to modernize our force protection capabilities for future threats. The RPG threat to our combat systems is considerably less than what has been reported in the press. Since 2003, there were a total of 148 Soldiers killed in action (KIA) or died of wounds received in actions involving an RPG. Of the 148 killed in action, 63 were RPG only; the remaining KIAs were the result of complex attacks involving an RPG and some other kind of weapon. Additionally, of the 148 killed in action since 2003, only ten Soldiers killed in action involved current combat vehicle systems that the Army could potentially accept the integration of an active protection capability (Abrams, Bradley, Stryker, etc.). The reactive armor and slat armor protection systems currently deployed contribute to the effectiveness of our current combat systems to defeat the RPG threat without use of an Active Protection System.

As such, the "148 Soldiers killed by RPGs" number is a bit misleading. Of those 148, only 10 were in vehicles that could even field the TROPHY system. That is not to gloss over the loss of 10 people; however, 8 times that number of people have been killed in HMMWV accidents in Iraq. The main threat from RPGs is to soft-skinned vehicles -- LMTVs, HMMWVs, etc, which cannot field the TROPHY system. If those vehicles are being escorted by vehicles that are fielding TROPHY, they may get some protection from that -- though I don't know enough about the system capabilities to say that with any certainty. In any event, though, I don't want to downplay the deaths of Soldiers. However, RPGs represent one threat out of many (IEDs, vehicle rollovers/accidents, to disease, snipers, etc.). There is no system that is 100% effective to stop any one of those. The TROPHY system is, according to the article, 98.5% effective. This raises a question in my mind: what is the % effectiveness, right now, of anti-RPG measures (which is basically the vehicle's armor), of vehicles that could field TROPHY, but aren't? If 10 Soldiers have been killed in vehicles that could have fielded TROPHY, that is 10 KIA out of how many total RPG attacks? If anyone has any means of finding those numbers, it might be interesting.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Hate to post twice, but there is one other section of the testimony that is worth highlighting.

The general chronology of events leading up to the award begins back in September 2005, when the LSI released the Request for Proposal (RFP) to industry. Industry proposals were submitted in October 2005 and the LSI conducted the source selection evaluation between October 2005 and February 2006. In February 2006, the LSI selected Raytheon for the APS Development subcontract. The Army concurred with the contract awarded to Raytheon in March 2006. As with all contract decisions, debriefings were conducted with unsuccessful offerors between March and April 2006, including sponsors of the TROPHY system, General Dynamics.

My reading of this testimony is that the LSI (Lead Systems Integrator) looked at several proposals for the APS system, including TROPHY, and ultimately selected Raytheon's proposal for the system over the TROPHY system. The reason I highlight this is because it seems to be contrary to the OP/title of this thread: that the Army is rejecting TROPHY because it wants to protect it's big contract with Raytheon. If TROPHY was considered and rejected before they even had the contract with Raytheon, then it seems unlikely that "putting Raytheon profits before lives" is the reason for rejection, unless there is some other evidence that the selection process itself was unfair. It also shows that -- again, assuming the contract selection process was fair -- the Pentagon wasn't that impressed with TROPHY to begin with.

I might buy that the Raytheon contract might make some people not want to field TROPHY as an interim system. However, the alternative could also be the Army simply doesn't think the TROPHY system is what is needed in Iraq right now. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right about that, but it does make the issue a whole lot less sinister than the articles in the OP suggest.