Army shuns system to combat RPGs

MSNBC.com ^ | Sept 5, 2006 | Adam Ciralsky, Lisa Myers & the NBC News Investigative Unit

[ruptured duck]

WASHINGTON - Rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, are a favorite weapon of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are cheap, easy to use and deadly.

RPGs have killed nearly 40 Americans in Afghanistan and more than 130 in Iraq, including 21-year-old Pvt. Dennis Miller.

“They were in Ramadi, and his tank was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade,” says Miller’s mother, Kathy. “Little Denny never knew what hit him.”

Sixteen months ago, commanders in Iraq began asking the Pentagon for a new system to counter RPGs and other anti-tank weapons.

Last year, a special Pentagon unit thought it found a solution in Israel — a high-tech system that shoots RPGs out of the sky. But in a five-month exclusive investigation, NBC News has learned from Pentagon sources that that help for U.S. troops is now in serious jeopardy.

The system is called “Trophy,” and it is designed to fit on top of tanks and other armored vehicles like the Stryker now in use in Iraq.

Trophy works by scanning all directions and automatically detecting when an RPG is launched. The system then fires an interceptor — traveling hundreds of miles a minute — that destroys the RPG safely away from the vehicle.

The Israeli military, which recently lost a number of tanks and troops to RPGs, is rushing to deploy the system.

Trophy is the brainchild of Rafael, Israel’s Armament Development Authority, which has conducted more than 400 tests and found that the system has “well above [a] 90 percent” probability of killing RPGs and even more sophisticated anti-tank weapons, according to reserve Col. Didi Ben Yoash, who helped develop the system.

[MyDogAllah]

[The only way to win a war is to make the other side beg for it to be over.]

Yup! Last time I checked, NONE of our enemies were begging. We are fighting the War on Terror in a politically correct manner, instead of trying to win. Which is why we are not winning.

[Joe Brower]

The primary problem with this system and the way it works is that it poses an enormous threat to foot troops in the vicinity. The IDF operates in a very different way than the U.S., with tanks working independantly, sometimes alone, and very far off from their men with boots on the ground. We often combine the two.

Phrased differently, this system would create far too many "friendly fire" incidents.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Welcome Home,,First,,I'm Ol'School,,I Don't Like New Fangled Stuff(M-16) IF This Stuff Works,,Is What I Worry
About,,,Two Of My "SONS"(young men dear to my heart)
Are Over There In The 10th Mt.Div. I Don't Think They Have
Enough/Use Enough FIRE-POWER! I Want More Fire-Power For
The GRUNT On The Ground,,More ARC-LIGHT.

[Balding_Eagle]

My expertise of military equipment is next to zero, but this is one article that falls under the "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know somethings wrong with the assertions made herein".

I think it has to do with the November elections, soemthing to beat the Repubs about the head with. You know "the Republicans CLAIM they care about the troops.................but listen to this..............."

[seasoned traditionalist]

I agree that we need to do all to protect the lives of our servicemen, but that the ultimate goal is not to run a military with a primary objective as to protect their lives, but to successfully carry out the mission

You sound like a Senate democrat complaining that Rummy hasn't made war danger proof

And you friend, sound like you would have fit right in the Defense Dept and been right at home as one of Bobby McNamara's wiz kids and in trying to run the Vietnam War (and the military) like a business (and like he did at Ford, before accepting and becoming one of the worst SecDefs in the 20th Century) with a primary focus on the accounting aspect: Balance Sheets/P&L Statements, i.e, "what is the cost ratio of this strategy or objective and what will be our gains or losses when factoring in the possible casualties, or some other absolutely brilliant scenarios."

Yeah, great way to run a war and the military.

Rummy has done a great job under the circumstances. However, it has not been a bed of roses and the entrenched bureaucracy in the Pentagon have their own agendas.

Sad, very sad, but I see there's no sense in trying to make the blind see, so I'll bid you adieu and can't wait until next time.

[centurion316]

I'll put my military/combat experience up against yours any day and I agree with your critics

Now, stop calling people "Boy" and consider:

The source of this report (MSNBC)

The liklihood that the facts are misrepresented or missing (I can assure you that in this case, both are true)

The folks that have looked at Trophy and other systems are not idiots or rookies. They are highly skilled combat veterans who don't answer to politicans and have provided sound advice that I hope you and everyone else on this thread never hears about.

[azsportsterman]

A lot of the traffic in this thread is speculation about the reason the system is not being purchased. Perhaps someone should look at the system from the perspective of the materiel developer; you know, the guy that has to approve the system for purchase, so here are some thoughts:

There are several issues with the system. Just the basics, like size, weight, kill probability, and maintenance all come to mind.

The system consumes space. The combat vehicles we have in the box are already overloaded. Any suggestions on what should be left behind to accomodate it? Food, water, maybe that extra case of ammo?

Along with the space issue, the vehicle load capacity is currently stretched to the limit with the basic load and upgraded armor. Adding more weight is a serious issue.

The kill probability of the system in a combat environment is also questionable. What happens when more than one rpg is launched at the target? The bad guys have large quantities of those things, and they have no intention of saving them for a rainy day. They are pretty smart, and it won't take them long to figure out that the system can't handle multiple targets.

Maintenance is also a problem. Someone has to perform regular maintenance and repair on the system. Who does it, the Israelis? If Americans do the work, where do they get the training, in Isreal? How long does the training last? How much down time is the combat system (the vehicle) going to be out of service while the rpg defeat system is being worked on?

At $200K - $300K per copy, and needing to purchase several thousand copies, that is a big budget item that better be done correctly, or someone will be explaining to congresscritters why they spent a pile of cash on a system that doesn't solve the problem. Maybe the reason for not purchasing the system is political, but then maybe the reason is because it doesn't meet the need.

[Balding_Eagle]

If it's so effective, why haven't the Israelis launched a crash project to fit it to all of their vehicles?

I just talked to someone who said the Israelis have used it and found it isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[Captain Rhino]

That's the primary objection.

The "interceptor" that Trophy fires not only intercepts the RPG, it (along with the detonated RPG warhead) kills or wounds just about everyone in intercept space. (That'll really help morale!)

In addition, the test video shows the testing was conducted in wide open terrain so that the performance of the sensors was optimized, far different from the close urban situations that the troops face in Iraq. Like the Phalanx shipboard anti-ship cruise missile defense system, this system has to be fully automatic in detection and functioning. There is simply no way to have a human in the detection-identification-engagement loop and have the system function rapidly enough to intercept the incoming munition. The only decision the operator makes is to turn it on or off. If a kid throws a rock at the vehicle while it is in engagement mode, or, better yet, some kid shots a stone at the vehicle with a sling shot, will the object's velocity meet the threshold necessary to trigger the system's automatic functions? How does it react to other high speed objects, like bullets and shrapnel?

Finally, armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) these days are jam packed with electronics and other equipment (in addition to all the troop's stowed gear). How much overhead (in terms of weight, space, electricity, interfaces, antennas, etc.) does Trophy come with? Is there an overall system performance price to be paid when Trophy is mounted and integrated into the tank or AFV? That's what the Colonel Kotchman meant when he said:

“Trophy has not demonstrated its capability to be successfully integrated into a system and continue to perform its wartime mission,”...

We should also keep in mind that the US has had over 2500 KIAs in Iraq. The article notes that 130 of these KIAs are due to RPGs. 130 RPG-related KIAs out of 2500+ total is 5%. By far, the most dangerous weapon the terrorists/insurgents are employing is the IED. There is currently a lot of high priority/fast track work going into detecting and neutralizing them.

This is a complex issue. The news report, while not necessarily false, is very one sided. Fairly typical of the Fourth Estate, which bears no responsibility for finding solutions and admits none in exaggerating and exacerbating problems.

[az_gila]

I think this is the Raytheon system...

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/02-08-2006/0004277736&EDATE=Feb+8,+2006

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

The Other Thing No One Mentioned,,An RPG-B40 Type Won't
Hit The Barn,,,They Were Made To Be Fired En-Mass In Front
Of The Infantry,,,Salvo Fire,,All At Once.
One Of The "BOYS" Had One Go Across The Hood Of His HET.

[Spktyr]

I'd also like to point out that McNamara and Company also bought a lot of military hardware that had similar claims about their areas of competence, but which got an awful lot of people killed when it didn't work as advertised.

I suppose you'd prefer to repeat the mistakes of the gunless F-4 ("...because the smart missiles will work perfectly! 98% kill rate!" Too bad they were WRONG.) or the Sheridan tank, which fired the Shillelagh missile (see prior comment), or even the early jam-o-matic AR-15.

[Unmarked Package]

The promotional video produced by Rafael, the Israeli manufacturer of Trophy, has information about some of the questions raised here, such as the threat posed by Trophy to dismounted, flanking troops, ability to handle simultaneous, multiple threats by ATR and ATGM munitions, etc. Of course, I can't vouch for the validity of the claims made by Rafael, but the video provides more details than the Fox News video footage.

The Rafael promo video can be viewed at YouTube titled as Trophy - Active defence developed in Israel if you are interested.

[Joe Brower]

Wow, that's a great vid! You obviously are more knowledgeable about TROPHY than I.

I sincerely question their talk about a 1% ground-troop casualty rate. But in war, such ratios have to be considered acceptable. Unfortunate, but such is war. And I would hope that one has a on/off switch for the sytem in the vehicle's cabin somewhere. $:-)

And let us not forget that many of these considerations are a direct result of our humane desire to minimize civilian casualties by expending our own blood in trade. We always retain the option of simply annihilating the entire AO from the air and calling it a day. Speaking for myself, I would have excercised that option a lot more than it has.

[art_rocks]

My mother would say the same thing if this happened to me and I'm 39

[Spktyr]

The IDF doesn't seem to agree with Rafael's estimate of their system's effectiveness - they aren't buying it for their own vehicles.

[ASOC]

SHOUTING will get you nowhere.

Are YOU willing to walk alongside a APC with this system when an RPG is incoming? I sure as hell would not, nor would I want my son or his buddies to be around this deathtrap. Accurately descried as a Claymore on an hair trigger...image the result of an attack in a urban setting - say a market.

There is nothing wrong with the folks on the forum, profanity is discouraged -- perhaps you should check with the VA, your meds seem to be wearing off. /s

[Captain Rhino]

Yeah. Mass RPG fire followed by ground assault. Did that to us (USMC) at Hill 881 North outside Khe Sanh (sp) in 1968. The suddenness and violence of the attack ended up running a rifle company off of their position. Company regrouped and retook the hill after dark using rifles, bayonets, and hand grenades at very close range (along with company and battalion mortars and other supporting arms). Very nasty danger close sort of business.

In addition to massed RPG fire on the ground, the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are also using it to take down transport and attack helicopters (including AH-64s) at close range when the terrain permits such attacks.

By "Boys" are you referring to sons serving in Afghanistan or Iraq?

[miliantnutcase]

Good points. The best place for reactive on Abrams is on her top and skirt. And it seems too dangerous with two guys sticking their heads out the top...3 with driver. At least attm. nothing can penetrate the front DU armor. That I've seen (I know hellfire can't, not sure if they tried with javeline).

[Captain Rhino]

Thanks for the link.

Interesting video.

Like another poster, I would have to be convinced by testing with witness panels before I would accept the 1% friendly casualty figures. The supposed weight saving probably would not materialize because, even with Trophy, the vehicles still have a lot of other threats (not just RPGs) that drive their armor requirements.