Comments on: So Much for “Force Fields”

By: Baltasar D. Cruz

Baltasar D. Cruz — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:11:58 +0000

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/

By: pdp

pdp — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:34:12 +0000

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.

By: Carmel

Carmel — Fri, 12 May 2006 11:10:33 +0000

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.

By: Moose

Moose — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:24:02 +0000

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.

By: Andrew Johansen

Andrew Johansen — Mon, 01 May 2006 03:02:02 +0000

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.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:41:43 +0000

>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.

By: Tamir Eshel

Tamir Eshel — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:50:15 +0000

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…

By: CRW

CRW — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:44:17 +0000

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.

By: JSAllison

JSAllison — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:19:23 +0000

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.

By: TJ

TJ — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:14:04 +0000

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.