Israeli armor saves American lives in Iraq

Israel21c ^

[IAF ThunderPilot]

Israeli-developed armor that has been installed on American armored personnel carriers (APCs) in Iraq has saved "many lives", according to a letter of recognition the US Army has sent to Rafael, the Israel Armament Development Authority.

The Bradley and 7AV APCs in the service of the US Army and the Marines, which play a central role in the armed operations in Iraq, have been fitted over the last year with armor by Rafael in partial cooperation with the American General Dynamics company, based in Burlington, Vermont.

A source in the company told ISRAEL21c that the letter stated, "When the fighting in Iraq was tough, and your product was urgently needed, you did everything you could to expedite production and delivery."

The rush deliveries were part of the US military's effort to slow the damage done by roadside mines, explosive charges and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which have killed more than 150 U.S. troops in Iraq.

According to the Israeli paper Ma'ariv, one of the senior officials in the American defense establishment said explicitly: the Bradely is the best protected vehicle in Iraq.

Rafael received the $19.4 million order from the U.S. Army's TACOM / ARDEC Picatinny Arsenal last year, covering procurement of 56 reactive armor vehicle sets and 170 partial sets for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The contract also included funding for the qualification and first-article testing of a product upgrade to further improve crew and vehicle survivability over the current design.

"They were trying to find American-made armor not something that comes from abroad," said the Rafael source, but after much research found that Rafael's was the most reliable.

According to Rafael's web site, with the new reactive armor, the Bradley is better able to withstand a direct hit from a variety of anti-armor munitions, including shoulder-fired rocket propelled grenades, which are in abundant supply in many of today's regional conflicts.

The armor is of the most advanced in the world: it is made up of passive protection, which is constructed of strong material that diverts the rocket, and of reactive protection, which is comprised of plates that contain explosives. The minute the rocket jet stream hits one of those plates the explosives go off, preventing the rocket from penetrating the APC.

The add-on armor consists of 105 tiles that attach to the sides, the turret and the front of each Bradley. The tiles, which look like small boxes, contain a special explosive charge that detonates when hit by a missile or rocket with a shaped-charge warhead. The resulting explosion disrupts the incoming, armor-penetrating gas jet produced by a RPG, for example, so the Bradley remains unharmed.

"The armor has minimal effect on the vehicle, it's lightweight and easy to enter. Crews in the field can handle it easily," the Rafael source told ISRAEL21c. "The active armor is also easy to handle - it can operate in extreme conditions and temperatures."

"The idea is to apply chemical energy against chemical energy," an official within Rafael told Defense News.. "These tiles contain a very special, insensitive explosive that is detonated only when hit by a missile or a rocket. For safety reasons, our armor does not react to other heat sources such as small arms or other fragments. When it detonates, the action of the elements inside the tiles interact with the incoming jet of the warhead, and defeats it."

The US Army is thrilled with the results, according a release from the US Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems (PEO-GCS).

"Reactive armor has functioned very well. The soldiers in these (Bradley) units are excited about the product because it is providing a level of survivability that they previously didn't have," said Maj. John Conway, assistant product manager of Bradley systems for the PEO-GCS.

"All you have to do is read the news about the kinds of threats our soldiers are encountering and you immediately realize that these tiles are saving lives because they are defeating the threats they were designed to defeat," Conway said, adding "for the foreseeable future, reactive armor is one of the best ways to defeat these kinds of threats."

"The Bradley program manager told us he had no doubt that the Rafael reactive armor was saving lives in Iraq," Rafael Chairman Jacob Toren told Defense News. "This is a proven capability; it's not theoretical. It's in full production at GDATP and here at Rafael."

Rafael first began applying reactive armor technology immediately after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when the Israeli military realized its older-model tanks were vulnerable to missiles and rockets. Israel became the world's first army to use reactive armor, but kept it secret until Syrian forces captured an Israeli tank in Lebanon.

Since then, Rafael has continuously improved its technology and applied it to numerous programs in Israel and abroad. The armored systems directorate official noted that Rafael provided add-on armor for the U.S. Marine Corps' AAV7 amphibious assault vehicles used during major combat operations in Iraq earlier last year.

Rafael has been working with GDATP since 1994 to provide reactive armor sets for the U.S. Army Bradleys. The latest contracts for the improved sets bring total production orders to 605.

Rafael's representative told ISRAEL21c "The result is a quality-proven product which has saved the lives of many Marines."

[Convert from ECUSA]

All I can say is, thank you, Israel! :)

[pawdoggie]

Curious then as to why Saddam didn't have these weapons, or why they didn't fall into the hands of the insurgents if he did.

This was, I believe, a money issue. Saddam may have had some modern AT missile systems (there were reports, later disputed, that the Iraqis had some of the Russian "Kornet" ATGMs), but for the most part he hoarded his "oil for food" money, or spent it on new palaces.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Cheers and thumbs up to you from Virginia, Ivan. To use the old Southern expression: preach it, brother!

[dervish]

This suggests that some rethinking of equipment is in order. Assymetrical warfare presents different needs and requires different technology. Such warfare is likely to be with us for awhile.

IMO the biggest mistake of this war was not anticipating the terrorism after. It is the Islamist trademark.

[Enterprise]

Here is what appears to be a logical sequence, based on your posts:

Saddam didn't possess anti-ERA weapons. And I don't think it was a money issue. He had unlimited money to buy such things, and no embargo would have stopped him.

Because he didn't have anti-ERA weapons, they didn't therefore, fall into the hands of the insurgents.

The U.S. Military entered Iraq without ERA on its vehicles.

So, did the military enter Iraq knowing full well that Saddam did not possess anti-ERA weapons? Was this an intelligence failure?

At some point in time, it became evident to the military that they really, really needed ERA.

When did the military realize that it needed ERA? Was it before it entered into Iraq, when they would be in full battle contact with the Iraqis, expecting, I assume, that the Iraqis would possess anti-ERA weapons, or was it after it entered Iraq and the insurgents began to use conventional weapons against troops in vehicles not protected by ERA?

"The rush deliveries were part of the US military's effort to slow the damage done by roadside mines, explosive charges and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which have killed more than 150 U.S. troops in Iraq.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Actually anti-ERA weapons are mainly improved tank shells & anti-tank missiles with tandem warheads-while these are not impossible to get,they are not as easily available on the black market or through 'dark' government contracts.It was reported that the Iraqi army did have a few Kornet missiles(from Syria),though some reports now rubbish that claim.

[sukhoi-30mki]

I think your post itself answers your query-the US did not anticipate this scale of insurgency.Most of the weapons the Slammics used-mines,RPGs etc were easily available & darn cheap.

[SaltyJoe]

Thank you Israel.

[Enterprise]

I think that is the essence of the dilemma I have with this matter. Simply put, no one expected a widespread insurgency using cheap destructive weapons. Hence if the military did expect such widespread attacks, the vehicles might have benn equipped with ERA.

[Paul Ross]

Surprising vulnerability with the jihadists aggressively going after every weakness...

M-1 Abrams Tank Proves Useful, Vulnerable In Iraq
(Washington Times, March 31, 2005, Pg. 9)

The Army's M1 Abrams tank unexpectedly has proven to be one of the best weapons in close-range urban warfighting in Iraq, but its once invincible image has been shattered by an inventive enemy. Insurgents have destroyed more than 20 of the 68-ton armored fortresses and disabled scores more, not with sophisticated anti-tank weapons, but with relatively crude rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.

[Mark17]

Ivan, LOL, tell us how you REALLY feel. I agree, we are all in this together.

Regards

[Mark17]

I visited Auschwitz.

I visited Dachau once, in 1981, while I was in the USAF and stationed in Germany. It was ghastly and educational. I saw the monument there, saying in French, Russian, German and English (I think it was those languages) NEVER AGAIN. Only time will tell if those words are true.

[pawdoggie]

So, did the military enter Iraq knowing full well that Saddam did not possess anti-ERA weapons? Was this an intelligence failure?

If you are referring to "intelligence" in the sense of "reconnaissance and surveillance" the answer in this case is "no". Of course, you can never know what you don't know, and tandem warhead rounds aren't like tanks or tactical ballistic missiles that have a rather large "footprint". For example, if Saddam Hussein had believed that we were spending a ton of money on ERA prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, he might have prevailed on his contract Russian generals to purchase more tandem warhead systems/rounds for him. On the other hand, if you mean "intelligence failure" in the sense that senior commanders have not had the intelligence or common sense to listen to what their Military Intelligence personnel have been telling them for decades about the "rear area threat" posed by Soviet SPETSNAZ or North Korean unconventional warfare forces (which had the potential to be a far more serious threat than the Iraqi insurgents), then "intelligence failure" may be an operative term.

Then again, as Secretary Rumsfeld suggested, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had. There is no "perfect mix" of "light" and "heavy" forces for every conceivable contigency. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom the Left's military martyr, then Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki (i.e. he who was "so right" and "so prescient" about how many "boots on the ground" would be needed to pacify Iraq), was frantically trying to strip the armor from military vehicles so that they would be more "air transportable". One by-product of this was the "Stryker" light armored vehicle, which was "retro-fitted", post OIF, with anti-RPG screens to give it the ballistic protection Eric the All-Knowing never intended it to have (like the WWII "tank destroyer", the Stryker was supposed to use its superior speed and enhanced "target acquistion" capabilities to protect it from the threats posed by Russian-made main battle tanks, and from ATGM/RPG equipped infantry). Naturally, every military commander would like all their vehicles, even the mobile mess truck, to be armored, all-terrain, amphibious and fast, but the tax-payers wouldn't even want to contemplate the prospects of paying for such a force.

[lancer]

Reactive armor for the Bradley was being made in 2001. Don't know if it was made for US before, but it was made long before the Iraq insurgency.