Com-Central.net

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

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...

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.

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!"

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

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.

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?

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.

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)

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