A few weeks back, buzz was building, fast, for Trophy, an Israeli “active protection” system that stops rocket-propelled grenades in mid-air. At the Naval Surface Warfare Center, demonstrations of the vehicle-mounted defender a went well, with the Trophy’s four radars picking out out RPG threats, and firing a kind of buckshot at the incoming shells. In Israel and here in the States, test vehicles were getting equipped. Fox News got so fired up, it declared Trophy to be a “top secret… futuristic force field.” Which lead some commenters on the lunatic fringe to cheer for the new “barrier of invisible energy fragments (perhaps light particles charged by lasers).“
But all the heavy-breathing didn’t help the system, in the end. “The Army is passing up [on Trophy] … to pursue an alternative system that wont be fielded until 2010 or later,” Defense News ace Greg Grant reports.
The Army won’t say why, exactly — only that “the issue with any [active] armor protection system is the 60 percent solution is not acceptable,” says Maj. Gen. Roger Nadeau. But here’s a guess: What happens when Trophy confuses a kid with a rock and an RPG-carrying insurgent? How does that look on Al-Jazeera?
The free-thinkers at the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation — the folks who sponsored the Trophy trials, and who are planting the system on their experimental Project Sheriff vehicles — have an alternate theory, however. The Army, in their view, is worried that Project Sherriff and Trophy might compete with its massive vehicle modernization program, Future Combat Systems.
The Army knew about Trophy some 60 officers and FCS officials visited Israel for briefings, but not a single one asked for more information on the system. The OFT stumbled onto the system last summer and immediately moved to negotiate a government-to-government technology agreement allowing American officers unprecedented access to all the top-secret data on the system…
In fact, Army acquisition officials are lobbying [higher-up Pentagon] officials to allow the service to remove the active protection system and the millimeter-wave active denial [pain ray] systems that are at the heart of the [Project Sherriff] vehicle.
“Instead, the Army wants to field a Sheriff that eschews the active armor system for slat armor,” Grant notes. And that’s a big problem. Because insurgents in Iraq have started using a new, powerful RPG that shreds the cage-like defense.
The RPG-29… packs two shaped-charge warheads: a small one to blow up the reactive armor or blow through the slats, clearing a path for a larger charge to strike the vehicles hull. [The weapon] poses such a threat to American armor that the U.S. military has refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi Army to buy them, fearing they will fall into the wrong hands, the top Iraqi ground-forces general told The New York Times last August.
There is only one currently available active armor system designed to defeat RPGs: Israels Trophy system, according to OFT officials.
UPDATE 12:55 PM: Last week’s Inside Defense had more on the Army’s active protection reservations. “It is not just about giving [soldiers] an APS 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.
In recent months, service officials — not directly involved in the development of APS technologies — have warned against waiting for a 100 percent solution. During a March 28 Institute for Defense and Government Advancement defense acquisition symposium, Edward Bair — the Armys program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors — spoke in detail about how acquisition reform could better support the warfighter. Included in Bairs presentation was the term “Good Enuf,” at which time he explained that good enough today is better than optimum five years from now.
UPDATE 1:09 PM: Alabama National Guard LT and missile defense engineer Jimmy Wu says some of the Army’s hesitancy is legit. But only some.
The cloud of projectiles from the active protection system is bound to hit people in addition to its target RPG. In addition, in an urban fight, the RPG gunners will try to get inside the minimum range of a Trophy system such that it does not have the time to shoot down the RPG.
On the other hand, there are situations where the Trophy is useful. For example, during the approach march [eg, highway convoys], where everyone is under armor, the Trophy will minimize losses from an RPG ambush.
Both sides have merit. However, if I was deciding, I would deploy the Trophy. By adding an off switch, the Trophy operator can turn off the system when there are many people outside the vehicle. Training is not a big factor because the small fleet deployed is too small to cause future training problems. Supply should not be an issue either because of the small fleet. We need to encourage experimentation on the battlefield instead of quashing initiatives like the Sheriff.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Why is it a problem if “Trophy confuses a kid with a rock and an RPG-carrying insurgent”? The interception is supposed to take place in midflight, so at worst, Trophy wastes some ammo blasting apart a rock in mid-air. I don’t believe that Trophy is supposed to target the source of the projectile.
The system can determine the source of the incoming projectile, according to Defense Daily, but I don’t think that it’s configured to take that shot — Sheriff, for one, is supposed to have a different system designed to do that. And I imagine it really would make more sense to use a traditional round to do that work than Trophy’s fancy “buckshot”.
Of course, collateral damage from Trophy’s “buckshot” (both to civilians and to friendly forces) is a whole ‘nother matter — all we have is the testers’ word on that. DD quotes (4/5/06) a RAFAEL spokesman saying that the probability of hitting nearby friendlies is “less than 1 percent.” So maybe that’s the number that was too high for the Army’s tastes.
I could see it using some sort of infra red detection in order to only target rocket propelled projectiles. Probably a little more difficult when the rocket is coming toward you but there must still be some sort of heat signature.
I don’t see why the fire control system should have a problem telling rocks from rockets. Muzzle velocity for an RPG-7 is commonly listed at 140m/sec or more than three times the speed of a well-thrown baseball.
If the system can’t discriminate between the two, either fire some programmers or sign that kid with the 300MPH arm up for the Cardinals- they need all the help they can get.
call me old fashioned, but the reason we don’t want to kill kids is not cos it looks bad on al jazeera, but cos its wrong.
Why are we engaged in the discussion of esoteric weapons when basic problems are not being resolved? We now have one of the usual suspects, retired General Kalashnikov, claiming that U.S. troops prefer to throw away their M-16 rifles and pick-up captured AK-47 rifles! Absurd? Of course! But no one would blame them if they did so, for the U.S. Army is no longer going to war with a real Assault Rifle. The basic principle behind such a rifle is that it greatly increases the firepower and effectiveness of the average infantryman by providing a controllable automatic weapon. This certainly empowers the average infantryman in any combat situation (except in the role of sniper, for which there are special rifles).
The Germans, in WW II, first demonstrated the effectiveness of the original automatic Assault Rifle, with their StG 44. The Russians immediately took notice! The Allies, including the U.S. Army, did not. That is why we fought the Korean War with World War II type M-1 rifles, against automatic weapons. Finally, exactly 20 years after the Russians adopted an Assault Rifle, the Army officially adopted the M-16 Assault Rifle in 1967! Incredibly, it was the Air Force which had to bring the issue to a head by advising the Army that it was adopting the Assault Rifle, even if the Army did not (God Bless the great Air Force General and Chief of Staff, Curtis LeMay, who always looked after the troops).
The M-16 had some initial problems, but it was a pretty good weapon in comparison with what was available throughout the world. Then, in 1983, having made some basic improvements in the M-16, the Army did a very, very stupid thing. They converted the fully automatic M-16 into a three shot, burst mode rifle. Suddenly, the Army no longer had a real Assault Rifle! This did, of course, resolve some minor logistical problems about which the Brass were concerned. Unfortunately, the Brass were not concerned about empowering the troops! So, the Army no longer has a fully automatic Assault Rifle, such as the Germans had in 1944 and the Russians had starting in 1947. The Marines and Special Forces do not, of course, agree with the Armys non-automatic M-16 and have adopted their own weapons. They know that no electronic aiming device can compensate for the lack of an automatic Assault Rifle. The Army command is simply and totally not looking out for the troops! Why, after all these years, should we not be surprised?
And finally, let us not forget that even the Krauts, whose logistics in Russia were a joke, managed to deliver trench guns to help out in house to house fighting in Stalingrad. Did we see any trench guns in house to house fighting in Iraq? Golly, I guess I missed that. No doubt the miserable chair warmers in the Pentagon just could not locate the phone number for Remington. And goodness knows, double-ought buck shot is a rare and scarce type of ammo, which can only be found in every local hardware store in the U.S. In the absence of proper trench guns, it sure would be nice to have automatic Assault Rifles for such urban fighting. But maybe the Pentagon is right, we should all just stand back a quarter of a mile and slowly and carefully shoot them down with bolt action Springfield’s. Alternatively, we could drag heavy machine guns, hut to hut, as it were. Forget about anti-this and that, get the troops a decent automatic Assault Rifle!
“But here’s a guess: What happens when Trophy confuses a kid with a rock and an RPG-carrying insurgent? How does that look on Al-Jazeera?” Rofl kid with rock gets killed simple as that – serves the little sht right anyway, bout time people wisened up and killed those trying to harm them instead of panicking what Al-Jizz says, which is of course the eneamy propaganda channel along with CNN and Al-BBC. Bout time you guys stopped worring about the enemys right to live, they sure as hell dont give a flying fck about ours! What next – bullets to dangerous to use in combat incase they kill or injure?? Move into the real world please!
Seems to me that the problem with Trophy is that it’s no use in any combined arms op where you have infantry alongside the tank.. Which pretty much describes every operation in an urban environment. Someone shoots an RPG at you and before you know it Trophy has fired buckshot into your infantry escort…
That said, if you could add an off switch and fix the TTPs, there’s definitely some potential here.
Okay, so we install this system with an off button, vehicle gets surrounded by munchkins and the TC turns it off. So far, so good.
Know what happens when our enemy gets wind of this? They send forth the sea of munchkins or they just wait for the inevitable crowd to form to be followed shortly afterwards by the incoming RPG.
Assuming that Trophy is a little more focused than the average explosive I’m guessing that the least bad alternative would be to get it, field it, put it to work, and fiddle with it when shortcomings appear, which they will.
Oh yeah, and keep the slats and ERA, I’m a belt and suspenders kinda guy.
Re: Pat West’s posting:
I thought the 16′s had a 3-select switch now–single shot, three-shot burst, full auto. Have I been incorrect for so long?
Also: The argument for full-auto fire he presents just seems a bit off. I’ve seen too many videos of gunmen shooting off rounds without effect for it to seem reasonable. In Vietnam, last figure I had, 20,000 rounds of small arms were expended per casuality caused. Neither logistics nor our PR could handle that now, I think. Finally: Marines have done incredibly well teaching their guys to aim and shoot. Last I heard, in fact, the Army was following that lead in marksmanship training. The era of the “mad minute” is over, and will not be missed.
Finally: I have seen shotguns in the hands of troops in Iraq on many occasions. They’ve got street sweepers and they know how to use them, you can bet on that.
Live Large.
Trophy, and other APS currently maturing in Israel are not the dumb buckshot guns you imagine. These are sophisticated active countermeasures, designed operate in extremely difficult situuations, detecting a wide range of theats, assessing the highest risk and deploy countermeasures against it. They can guard a full hemisphere or just a sector, so their effect can be adjusted to protect the exposed flanks of the tank. The concern of collateral damage is justifiable but should not be overstated. The same arguments were raised against reactive armor (Germany, for example), and some armies decided not to deploy reactive armor because of their concern to collateral damage and casualties around the protected vehicles. However, most armies tasked with serious combat operations in hostile environment would go for reactive armor and should adopt an APS. In fact, when operated consciously, an APS should not cause excessive risk to friendly unprotected forces. If the situation is so fragile, where a hostile can pop up and shoot an RPG at a tank from short range, think of what it means for unprotected infantry and nearby civilians? The system operates close-in, with localized effect at a very short range. During routine patrols, in “stability and security” operations, tanks and APCs are usually not deployed so close to concentrations of non combatants. However, if they operate in combat situations, civilians should be much further away. Trophy is ready and can protect US servicemen now, when it’s most needed. Let’s hope that by the time the full spectrum solution is ready, the war will end and the US will be out of Iraq…
>There is only one currently available active
>armor system designed to defeat RPGs: Israels
>Trophy system, according to OFT officials.
These people are day dreaming and don’t know anything else than their own, thinking they have the best equipment. I wonder if anyone has been aware about its weight. RPG is not the only threat. You also have IEDs to face and heavy weight of Trophy could put more stress and decrease mobility of such vehicle, adding more chance of threats by IEDs targetting slower vehicles. Yes, and the military is also concerned about friendly fire for detonation near the troops nearby the system. So, trash the Trophy for now.
all this talk about the trophy system hurting nearby troops or civlians is rubbish.
A: the system uses a highly focused shot to dissable the rpg.
B: even if the “buck-shot” did hit some nearby friendlys it would still cause much less damage than if the rpg went off when it hit the vehicle. THink about it, if there wasnt any trophy like system on the vehicle and it got hit by an rpg the explosion and shrapnel would still kill all the nearby people. So that eliminates the argument that you would put dissmounted troops at a greater risk.
As for the concerns about weight, i don’t think anyone here can accuratley guage that since no detailed specs or layouts of the system have been released.
Well, I don’t think the argument on “hitting the rock-throwing kid” is valid at all. You can’t tell me that a radar system is going to confuse a 300mph projectile with a 60pmh one. Second, if the buckshot hits some people in the background, that’s friggin’ war. It’s not the people in the vehicle’s fault that their enemy decided to fire an RPG in the middle of a crowd, it’s the enemy’s fault for not giving a flying f#ck who they hit, as long as people die. The propagandists are going to call whatever happens an intentional killing of civilians by the vehicle that was targeted anyway – screw them, we have to have our own “truth-machine” in place to counteract that.
So, if you don’t deploy an APS like Trophy, and the vehicle gets blown up, and the troops in the vehicles ahead and behind the blown-up one open fire on every dark window, alleyway and rooftop they see a shape in, and kill 5 people in the crossfire, is that a better solution? Use the 60% solution that protects OUR vehicle even if it has a small chance of hitting civilians in the background, until a better one is developed, in 2010 or whatever.
It’s the enemy that is choosing to fire that rocket… we shouldn’t be concerned with when and where we are allowed to defend ourselves when the enemy attacks. Plus, the Trophy does fire a very concentrated and well-aimed shot, so it’s not going to take out a whole slew of people. If you give it an off-switch for very dense crowds, then it’s even better. Then also, not every RPG ambush hits on the first rocket, so the minute the first one went by the troops could flip the switch and dog the hatches (again, that’s better than having nothing! and the shrapnel from a hit is going to hit innocent people anyway).
As far as the comments on the ’16/M4, I don’t think you need full-auto assault rifles much anymore. Really, you can get practically the same fire downrange with successive 3-rd burst shots, but they will be more accurate and actually spread your ammo usage out over about 1 second longer (meaning the enemy keeps their heads down 1 sec longer). The only time full auto is really handy is in bounding-overwatch or suppression, and you got the M-240 and M-249 for that (and the .50s on the vehicles).
The AK is incredibly hard to be as accurate as the M-16 with in rapid-fire situations, and while it can take nearly any environmental conditions and keep going, if troops keep their weapons clean, the improvements in the ’16 over the years make it almost as reliable, and much more accurate. The days of massive fire downrange in hopes of hitting something, like in WWII or Vietnam, are practically over, what with helicopters, UCAVs, portable scout drones, and your squad’s SAWs.
Keep the selector on 3-rd Burst with the ’16 and you got close to the same rounds per second as full-auto, but you are MUCH more accurate as you get that brief (.25 sec) between bursts to require your sight picture. If you are talking <10m engagements, use a damn Benelli M4 Super 90(M-1014 Combat Shotgun) – I’d deal with the weight to carry one on my back if I was going house-to-house, no doubt. Anyway, my two, er, bucks.
To “pedestrian”- who was worried about TROPHY’s weight- well, TROPHY weights about third of the SLAT armor, and about 20% of reactive armor. It does not affect in any way the vehicle’s mobility.
A little searching reveals two major flaws in Trophy. First it is not an all aspect system. How long do you thing an insurgent will take to figure out the “sweet spot”? Second it is not an auto-reloading device. How long do you think an insurgent will take to figure out how many shots are in the magazine? Its fine to debate whether to deploy a partially effective system, but whats gone on on this web discussion so far has illuminated nothing.
The assertions that Trophy has a blind spot and does not have an auto loader are demonstrably false. The autoloader was shown on NBC news and again on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and on Scarborough Country on or about Jan. 9, 2007. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/ at p.2.
Trophy has also been shown to hit targets from all directions and, as reported by NBC, “[the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformations's] officials subjected Trophy to 30 tests and found that it is ‘more than 98 percent’ effective at killing RPGs.” See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14686871/ An Israeli general was also shown on NBC news and on MSNBC asserting that Trophy can hit projectiles from “360 degrees.” See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/