±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: DIEGO38
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6597

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 88
Total: 88
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Member Screenshots
02: Photo Gallery
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Photo Gallery
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: CPGlang
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Photo Gallery
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Home
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: Home
26: Community Forums
27: Home
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Photo Gallery
35: Home
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Home
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Photo Gallery
48: Photo Gallery
49: Photo Gallery
50: Home
51: Photo Gallery
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Downloads
57: Photo Gallery
58: Downloads
59: Photo Gallery
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Home
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Photo Gallery
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Photo Gallery
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Home
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SHAWN
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 484

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:52 pm
Post subject: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

okay fellas, happened to catch the tail end report on the news this evening in re: an anti-RPG system or something. it was developed by the IDF, called Trophy?

do any of you who know more about this, feel that you can comment, shed more light on how this is supposed to work?

shawn
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
JimWeb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: The back of beyond
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

Not adopted by anyone yet as it is useless in built-up areas and poses a hazard to any of the dismounts around the vehicle. It is strictly a wide-open spaces and everyone under armour system.

TRAPS is a much better system that can be used even with personnel stood beside it...

Cool

_________________
TTFN
Jim

If your not a member of JED then your
not serious about anything military..

***********************
www.jedsite.info
JED Military Equipment
***********************
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website ICQ Number
Shadow_Banshee
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 02, 2005
Posts: 572

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

maybe this might be intresting, i checked and its ok to link to it, www.thesop.org/index.php?id=878 i was recently discusing this with a IDF friend so the link was handy. hope it helps.

_________________
Lay me place and bake me Pie
I'm starving for me Gravy
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:51 am
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

I believe Trophy may have seen some limited use in Lebanon last year. There's been a recent media stink about the U.S. turning its nose up to Trophy in favor of a home-grown version that's still pretty far down the road.

My own ill-informed concern with Trophy is its electronic footprint. Radars scannning for incoming rockets sounds like an opponent should be able to pick up and isolate vehicle signatures from miles away. 'Captain, I'm reading three Trophy signatures off the port bow!"
Back to top
View user's profile
SHAWN
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 484

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:13 am
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

thanks, i know i am not the only one who feels this way, the media can get my blood boiling...

oh my goodness, i cant believe i was going to use this term, the "drive-by" media, lisa meyers or whomever she was, reported on the trophy system,
presenting views and opinions that i dont feel are accurate, trying to make the govt or army out to be the bad guys and not putting the lives of the soldier first, blah, blah, blah.

this type of defense has some good pros, but too many cons at the present...
this is the first i have heard of it. sounds viable, but how useful would it really be?
seems like sci-fi, force fields around vehicles and such, seems cool


the story had mentioned something to do with an auto-loader, how did that fit into the system?

thanks for shedding some light on this for me, and for the link. i will check it out.
shawn
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 3941
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:23 am
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

Army Committed to Force Protection, Not False Security
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2006 – Army leaders are committed to ensuring soldiers have the best force-protection capability possible, but also want to avoid giving soldiers a false sense of security, service officials said here today.

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey A, Sorenson, the Army’s deputy for acquisition and systems management, took exception to an NBC News report that said the Army is not buying an Israeli system, called Trophy, that could protect soldiers and their vehicles from rocket-propelled grenades. The report alleges the Army manipulated information in favor of a competing Raytheon system, called Quick Kill.

Both the Israeli and Raytheon systems are designed to fire missiles that intercept RPGs in flight. The Israeli system may be six months ahead of the Raytheon system, but it has limitations. The NBC report made it sound as if the Army refused to field a perfectly fine combat system that would save lives, officials said.

Sorenson said they system is not a “produceable item.� The Israelis have been working on the Trophy system for 10 or 11 years, Sorenson said. “If this thing was ready to go, my question would be, why wasn’t it on the particular tanks that went into Lebanon?� he said. No Israeli Merkava tanks carried the Trophy system, he said.

Other problems include the fact that the system right now has no reloading capability. Once it fires, that side of the vehicle is vulnerable. Which brings up another shortcoming: the Trophy can only be mounted to protect one axis. This means officials would have to mount multiple missile systems on every vehicle. The Quick Kill missile has 360-degree capability and a reload capability.

Another worry is collateral damage, he said. “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,� Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.�

The general said there also is confusion on the contract award. “It was awarded by the lead system integrator and the government team,� Sorenson said. “It was not done by Raytheon. There was confusion in the report that the Army was cooking the books and which was absolutely false, blatantly false.�

Sorenson said the Army has standards of performance for force-protection capabilities. “These have not only been dictated by lessons learned in theater, but all the work we have done heretofore on all the systems prior to this,� he said. “We will not put anything out there that has not demonstrated that it is capable of doing what it is alleged to do.�

The bottom line is that if a system “does not have the ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’ it does not go forward,� Sorenson said.

The general said that every soldier lost is a tragedy. But, of the more than 1,400 soldiers killed in Iraq, most died from improvised explosive devices. A total of 148 soldiers have been lost due to an RPG or an RPG and other weapons. Sixty-three soldiers died by RPG only, he said. Broken down further, 10 soldiers died as a result of an RPG hit to a U.S. combat system -- an Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Stryker wheeled vehicle or M-113 armored personnel carrier.

“The reason that is so low is that those combat systems already have good force-protection systems applied,� Sorenson said. There are reactive armor tiles on the Bradley. Officials added slat-armor protection to the Stryker, and all combat vehicles have protection built into them, officials said.
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:30 am
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

Some describe the debate as a contest between a high-tech one-shot reactive system that may cost more than the vehicle itself vs a cheap steel cage with bars spaced 3 inches apart. of course a cheap steel cage doesn't boost Raytheon profit margin.

D'oh! I almost forgot to mention. Our gracious host 'AFV News' had a brief article on Trophy in its journal a short while ago. Is your magazine subscription up-to-date? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:58 am
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

Ah! By sheer coincidence I got home from work early last night, just in time to see an NBC news report pretty darned critical of Pentagon procurement in regards to Trophy. Not that they didn't field it, more that they did everything possible to keep from even looking at it! So the old story's still got legs.
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:23 am
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

I saw the story on NBC also. It was a pretty pointed and damning piece. Their focus was 'Army Does everything it can to keep from testing a system which may save soldiers lives to protect the FCS program which their (The Armys) favored contractor is developing' Including the old 'The Army refused our requests for interviews' which NEVER plays well.

Also nothing about cost or potential danger to dismounts (Which is the big problem I've always felt was there with active/reactive systems)

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 28, 2006
Posts: 2024
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Trophy-- anit-RPG technology?

Nobody's mentioned Humvee Protection,
Just curious if it would apply to them, since the majority of the traffic is of those type of vehicles. Pardon my ignorance but can it be used with a crewmember exposed in an open cupola??? If not the value would be even less. I will say that protective upgrades are happening all the time and as soon as you get used to one another comes out even better. IED's are the most common and biggest killer. RPG's can mess your day up, but at least there's a person you can kill if he tries to engage you. Can't fight an IED.
Did not see the NBC program, kinda glad I don't have regular access to it based on what everyone has said. Let's hope this story doesn't end up prompting some Congressman to start another uneccesary investigation that will either buy us a system we don't really need and siphon off funds needed elsewhere (Counter IED) or prevent the fielding of one in a timely manner that does work.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum