Israel has developed an anti-rocket-propelled-grenade (RPG) system, known as "Trophy," which could be used in Iraq to help protect US soldiers against one of the insurgents' most effective weapons. But NBC News reports that the US Army is balking at using Trophy, claiming that it not ready for field deployment, despite Israeli demonstrations to the contrary.
 |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe via RSS Feed:
    |
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 Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation] subjected Trophy to 30 tests and found it is "more than 98 percent" effective at killing RPGs. Officials then made plans to battle-test the system on some Stryker fighting vehicles headed to Iraq this year.
But the US Army blocked that testing. Why? Pentagon sources tell NBC News – and internal Army documents seem to confirm – that Army officials consider Trophy a threat to their crown jewel, the $160 billion Future Combat System (FCS). Under FCS, the Army is paying Raytheon Co. $70 million to build an RPG-defense system from scratch.
NBC also reports that the Army told Congress that Trophy is unsafe, does not have an autoloader (the Army suggested this would mean a soldier would have to get out of his or her vehicle to reload Trophy, this exposing themselves to enemy fire), and that Israel had not integrated it into their military. But NBC went to Israel and discovered that none of these points were valid.
NBC had asked to interview Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, who had briefed Congress in the fall of 2006 on the Army's objections to Trophy. But Maj. Gen. Sorenson later cancelled the interview, and the Army refused to answer a list of 29 written questions. The Army did give NBC two statements, which in part said, "The US Army is dedicated to ensuring our soldiers deploy with the best force protection capability and active protection systems available. The Army is proactively addressing the Rocket Propelled Grenade threat in Iraq." NBC also reports that it was previously told by the the Army that its Raytheon-built system to counter RPGs would be ready by 2011, but that the Army "now declines to say whether it still is on course to meet that deadline."
When NBC aired the first part of its investigation into the Trophy-Raytheon situation in September of 2006, DefenceTech.org wrote that NBC could have done a better job looking into why the US Army had some concerns about using the Trophy system.
"It is not just about giving [soldiers] an [anti-projectile] system. How do the soldiers work with it? How does it tie into the network? How do you know when to turn it on? When not to turn it on?" said Future Combat Systems program manager Brig. Gen. Charles Cartwright. "We could put something over there . . . overnight but have I got the logistics to be able to support," the technology.
Frida Berrigan, of the Arms Trade Resource Center, writes at Middle East Online about the 'nightmare weaponry of our future,' including the FCS. Soldiers in Iraq will tell you that they need better armor for their Humvees, for themselves, and even Silly String (to detect hidden trip wires), Ms. Berrigan writes. But while the US Army can't provide these "basics" of modern warfare, the US is promoting the multi-billion dollars FCS, that will enable soldiers to "perceive, comprehend, shape, and dominate the future battlefield at unprecedented levels."
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld once famously asserted, ''You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have." Pentagon planners seem to have taken the opposite tack. They prefer the military they, or their blue-sky dreamers, wish to have for the kinds of wars they dream about fighting. And it won't be cheap. A March 2005 GAO report found that the total program cost of Future Combat Systems alone "is expected to be at least $107.9 billion." In 2005, the Pentagon had already allocated $2.8 billion in research and development funds to FCS and, in fiscal year 2006, that was expected to increase to $3.4 billion. (Keep in mind, that all such complex, high-tech, weapons-oriented systems almost invariably go far over initial cost estimates by the time they come on line.)
DefenseTech.org reports, however, that the military has been forced to cut FCS by billions of dollars because of cuts in overall funding from Congress. One of the much-touted systems that will be scaled back is the Land Warrior, a high-tech "system of systems" that is worn by soldiers and designed to "provide every soldier with enhanced capabilities." After 15 years and a half-billion dollars in development, the military made the decision to cut back the budget for Land Warrior only six weeks after it had been first deployed.
- Grave and deteriorating for the children of Agnew (PressThink)
- Blogger-media distrust comes to a head in Iraq (USA Today)
- Gaza chief brands Hamas murderers (BBC)
Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan.
RSS feed