Pentagon: Counter-Battery System unneeded in Afghanistan

The Defense Department pushed back Friday against House Republican charges that U.S. troops in Afghanistan were being denied life-saving systems that were used to counter enemy rocket, artillery and mortar fire in Iraq.

“It’s altogether unclear that this system is a silver bullet,” George Little, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said of the C-RAM – the Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar system that links advanced radars with what is essentially a land-based version of the Navy’s Phalanx rapid-fire CIWS (Close-In Weapons System.)

Little acknowledged that requests for deployment of C-RAM to Afghanistan came from the U.S. Central Command in 2009 but “operational conditions have changed since ’09” as U.S. troops have begun withdrawing with the goal of having all combat forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

If commanders in the field were to renew requests for C-RAM, “then they will get what they need,” Little said.

In a letter to President Obama on Thursday, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote: “If a C-RAM intercept capability would protect our troops against lethal threats without detraction from our mission in Afghanistan, please immediately order the deployment of these weapon systems.”

In July 2009, CENTCOM put in a Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement (JUONS) requesting C-RAM for Afghanistan that was supported by Gen. David Petraeus, then the overall commander in Afghanistan.

At the time, “the Army agreed that the systems were available for deployment and determined that approximately 80-100 additional forces per site would have to be deployed to support the C-RAM intercept capability,” McKeon said.

“The Chairman didn’t assert that this would be a silver bullet,” a spokesman for McKeon said, but he said the need for C-RAM system would grow as the Afghan withdrawal continues and the U.S. forces consolidate on larger bases that will become more inviting targets for the Taliban.

The C-RAMS “effectively protected installations in Iraq” but were being denied to troops in Iraq because of of a “force cap” imposed by the Obama administration during the withdrawal, the McKeon spokesman said.

“We’ve got other adequate measures in place” to detect enemy fire, Army Lt. Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said without going into detail. With the C-RAM system, “you have to put a lot of fire into the air which, of course, threatens civilians,” Warren said.
The C-RAM system was deployed to Iraq in the summer of 2005 and was used to protect the “Green Zone” compound and Camp Victory in Baghdad.

The system’s radars are designed to pick up indirect fire and automatically fire a 20mm M61A1 Gatling gun, similar to the Navy’s Phalanx weapon against anti-ship missiles, to eliminate the threat. Unlike the sea-based system, the land-based system uses shells fused to self-destruct in the air to avoid civilian casualties.

24 Comments on "Pentagon: Counter-Battery System unneeded in Afghanistan"

  1. More political dribble from idiots like Buck McKeon. in some controlled situation this works fine. Iraq was flat territory and alot of open distances for radars to find incoming mortars and shells. Afghanistan not so much. Since the mountains can block radar and hid mortars very close by. This is more crap from Republicans fat with bribes from the companies who make this and are full of crap themselves. If they needed them in A-stain they would have asked the pentagon for one.

  2. Just leave now FFS, it's not going to get better in the next 2 years, everyone knows it but no one wants to be the one who "lost Afghanistan". They don't call it the grave yard of empires for nothing.

  3. Kandahar Airfield had a population of 25,000 troops and contractors last year. It is on a flat plain with open fields in all directions going out 10-20 miles before you get to any mountains. We received rocket and mortar fire a few times a month.

  4. Here's an idea, how about patrolling outside the walls so the bad guys can't get within range of their mortars. I know this is a crazy idea…

  5. Actually jack, it is kindo of crazy because the level of threat is extremely high once you leave the base. In the case of some of the deployment bases no troops leave thru the wire at all. They are bases used to ferry in supplies and then out to FOB's. The safest thing for them to do is stay inside the wire.

  6. The "stan is getting to be a bit Vietnam-ized with large bases and fixed positions.

    We had the same hunker down mentality in Khe Sahn, and lots of other places. We should definitely be patrolling outside the gate, that's what our talented recon teams train for, concealment, observation, and reporting.

    There shouldn't be any excuse for bad guy to penetrate the base-that is un-excusabe. If we had teams out there we'd know if they were coming or not. Lastly, where is all of our fancy surveillance, night vision, FLIR, etc, are they being used to protect the bases?

  7. The Australian base at Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan province in Afghanistan is protected by CRAM.

  8. "At the time, “the Army agreed that the systems were available for deployment and determined that approximately 80–100 additional forces per site would have to be deployed to support the C-RAM intercept capability,”

    Team O since day one is locked on withdrawal not victory, with of course enough support to hold plausible deniability. ala surge short full request but just enough to impression, and see above.

    war based on craven personal political ambitions.

  9. Amazing.
    All of these marvelous technology and NATO still losing the war!!

  10. If the brass thinks they don't need them then they dont need them. Who here was stationed in Balad, Baghdad or Basrah? Then you might know how intense IDF can be.

  11. There is no need for C-RAM our military has lost yet another war and all it thinks about now is saving thier own necks. Rather then deploy some elaborate pretence simply evacuate the bases.

    If we were serious about having a real military rather than an expensive horse and pony show we'd court-martial a generration of officiers and discharge the ranks without recomendation. Starting again from the bottom is the only way.

  12. Learn how to spell before you try to discuss strategy ltfunk.

  13. Or, you know, we could just leave now. Then the rockets and mortars would be Afghanistan's problem.

  14. So many liberals and hippies posting in defense threads and videos these days. As for the system, they should be deployed to key bases in Afghanistan as IDF attacks occur on a daily basis.

  15. the US Navy has stopped installing the Phalanx, it can't discriminate targets.
    The Phalanx works too well, it will shoot at anything it detects in target range
    (friend or foe). The RAM is replacing the Phalanx on ships, not quite as good in some respects as the Phalanx.

  16. I wonder what the 4 Apaches lost to mortar attack in 2007 would have to say about this? (And yes, I realize that 2007 occurs before 2009.)

  17. Saudi Arabia: Jewish Bloodline, Jewish State


  19. It’s like a race to the bottom, here in what was once America, land of the free and home of the brave. Which one will be the nail in the cffoin: the eco-catastrophe playing out all over the globe (including Peak Everything ), the military policy/corporate fiasco *********** or the insolvent bank (Wall Street/Fed) casino situation, practically guaranteed to default in our lifetime? i don’t think even Prozac will help, what we’re facing.

  20. i cant believe that you would deny them what they ask for -if they say they need the equipment why would you even hesitate-they are the only ones at war and placing it all on the line for this nation they got bin laden and now the feds why even insult the expertise of the military ops in the middle east

  21. I would support any system that would improve security for our troops and I totally support the Congressman's recommendations.

  22. Spend a day taking incoming where your only defense is hitting the ground and hoping you don't get hit. Give us the C-RAM and save lives and property.

  23. heres the bottom line. i was a C-RAM operator in iraq. there are two parts of C-RAM, intercept (the phalanx) and sense and warn. and yes the C-RAM intercept does discriminate targets. C-RAM is in A-stan but only the sense and warn and its contracted. call it a money game if you want. all i know is i made a fraction of the pay as what contractors make in A-stan. as far as intrecept, they really dont need it. capabilities the phalanx cant cover the area you might think or hope. so only HIGH profile assets would be cover by the phalanx. army side of the house sense and warn would be 5 times cheaper than intercept. contractor side it would be pretty close to if they had a phalanx.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.