It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

army blocking anti-rpg system for troops

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
this got me mad. really mad. and im glad that one of the major news networks is covering it. it appears the army is not willing equip our troops with the "trophy" anti-rpg system, made by israeli arms manafactuer rafael and reported to have a nearly 98 percent effectiveness in knocking rpgs out of the air, because theyre is currently a anti-rpg system being designed by american arms manafactuerer raytheon that is still in early prototype phase and the pentagon doesnt want to put a hamper on the development of the system. meanwhile, our troops remain without any effective system to guard against an rpg other than armor. like it says on the site, its striclty politics and money nothing more. i urge you to read this link from msnbc in its entirety.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

what i really wonder is, does anyone know if anyone in the current administration has any links to raytheon? like if someone in the white house right now is like a former employee,ceo, etc. something similar to cheneys involvement with halliburton?




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I think your thread is more appropriate for the weaponry forum.
Although it is about the War in Iraq, it deals with new weapon technology. Members discussing this technology will more likely be in the Weaponry Forum.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Man that really sucks. "Beware of the Military Industrial Complex" would fit well here ehh? I think it's quite ovbious we never intended to win this war quickly, and we don't intend to now. It's just not profitable to win a quick war.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
oh crap i thought i put this in thread in the weaponry forum! that was my intention anyway. thanks mods for moving it!



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
They don't care about protecting the U.S. soldiers there, obviously. More evidence the war is partly to create money for the subcontractors.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
just goes to show how expendible your forces are to your goverment

if they went with the israelis they would be losing valuble money in terms of contracts back in the US



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Is this more evidence of `made in the usa` which goes to every major purchase?

the system could be used tommorrow , flown out en masse and deployed



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Ha, military projects and on going R&D programs are a tricky subject but in this case they should use the Trophy systems ASAP and if they still want to continue with the Raytheon project, fine. From what I can see this is inexcusable on the part of the Army.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
After four years I had finally had to register an account to reply to this post. My God. You owe me big, buddy. ;]

Please, look up evidence, reports, and read the recent Popular Mechanics articles on this system.

First, and I'm leading with the ugly news-- One reason we declined the use of the thing, as that we have our own system under development, not unlike the Brits, and is set to see the field in.. 2012. [Unleash the flames!]

Two, there were far too many unknown variables. What if the RPG is a new model than expected? What if a soldier is between the vehichle and the RPG? Does he get seventy flechettes puncturing his body? All you'd have to do is fire an RPG on a side of the vehichle were there was an accompanying force and they'd be eliminated, whether or not the RPG would've caused any realistic damage.

Third, there were financial constraints, believe it or not, and conflict between the company and U.S. Gov.

This is why we will not accept the Trophy system.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
just goes to show how expendible your forces are to your goverment

if they went with the israelis they would be losing valuble money in terms of contracts back in the US


It all started when the M-16 became standard issue back in the 60's. Not to change the topic of the subject, but they haven't cared one bit about us for years.

We're expendable, they know it, and even the soldiers know it.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Forgive me, but I fail to see the correlation between standard-issue M16's, and the armies safety, unless you're referring to how terrible the initial models were.

And, following the off-topic, since I see no further reply to this thread required--
I want the G11 back. It was a sexy beast. A beast of sex. A Bestx!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
What if a soldier is between the vehichle and the RPG? Does he get seventy flechettes puncturing his body? All you'd have to do is fire an RPG on a side of the vehichle were there was an accompanying force and they'd be eliminated, whether or not the RPG would've caused any realistic damage.


This is a bad argument - the soldier(s) MAY get hit by 70 flechettes from trophy or the soldier(s) MAY get hit by RPG shrapnel and/or ERA shrapnel (depending on type and model of armored vehicle). Even without trophy, an RPG fired on the same side of the vehicle as dismounts can cause injuries. With trophy you MAY have injured dismounts, without trophy you MAY have injured dismounts outside the vehicle, injured soldier(s) inside the vehicle, and possibly a mobility kill on the armored vehicle. If an armored vehicle (like an MBT) can fire it's main cannon or smoke with friendly dismounts around it, there's no reason why it can't fire trophy. If you really are that concerned about friendly dismounts, you simply build an ON/OFF or SAFE switch into the hardware - it's not hard. The decision not to deploy trophy has resulted from pride and politics. No, it is not a perfect system, but an 80% solution today is better than a 100% solution after the fact.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
Forgive me, but I fail to see the correlation between standard-issue M16's, and the armies safety, unless you're referring to how terrible the initial models were.

And, following the off-topic, since I see no further reply to this thread required--
I want the G11 back. It was a sexy beast. A beast of sex. A Bestx!


Inital models lmao. I'm not even talking about jamming/cycling issues, that still to this day haven't been corrected. So you're telling me they're firing a different cartridge now, then Vietnam? Fact is, the .223/5.56mm is a very, very underpowered round, and was meant for use on small game, like varmint. The first .223's to hit the market were all bolt actions for that perticular use. 20 grs heavier, and 1600fps faster than a .22LR. That's not something to brag about. I mean heck, it's still a .22. I wouldn't even feel comfortable using something that small on anything larger than a coyote, much less a human being.

I take it you've never used one in combat or seen it used in a combat situation? Tell me it isn't underpowered when a guy takes 6 shots to the abdomen/chest, and keeps firing his AK, yet, I pop in one of my 7.62mm/.308win rounds in, and one shot in the same location drops the guy and many like him for good. I can pull up terminal ballistic studies conducted by the gov't that back my point all day long.

Look at when a car charges a checkpoint. Pitter patter, pitter patter all over the engine compartment, and it keeps coming. One 7.62mm FMJ through the grill blows the engine, yet it can take .22's all day long. Not to mention the fact that when they pitter patter those .22's at the car, occupants get hit as well, and every now and then the occupants turn out to be innocent. Considering that not all cars have bombs in them, I feel much safer, killing the car then investigating, rather than greasing everyone inside just to find out, that the car was empty.

Back to the topic-Things are going great for Raytheon the past few years haven't they? Seems like everyone in DC bends over backwards for these guys, and we pay the price time and time again.

Edited to add-I'd rather be issued a K98 Mauser, or a Springfield 1903 over that plastic bunny gun any day, any war, anywhere.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by WithoutEqual]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
After four years I had finally had to register an account to reply to this post. My God. You owe me big, buddy. ;]

Please, look up evidence, reports, and read the recent Popular Mechanics articles on this system.

First, and I'm leading with the ugly news-- One reason we declined the use of the thing, as that we have our own system under development, not unlike the Brits, and is set to see the field in.. 2012. [Unleash the flames!]

Two, there were far too many unknown variables. What if the RPG is a new model than expected? What if a soldier is between the vehichle and the RPG? Does he get seventy flechettes puncturing his body? All you'd have to do is fire an RPG on a side of the vehichle were there was an accompanying force and they'd be eliminated, whether or not the RPG would've caused any realistic damage.

Third, there were financial constraints, believe it or not, and conflict between the company and U.S. Gov.

This is why we will not accept the Trophy system.


well thanks for joining ats, you may find yourself addicted soon lol.

before i comment on your post, apparently there was an update to this story on msnbc its very interesting
www.msnbc.msn.com...
apparently it says the raytheon system was tested in a way that wasnt realistic, didnt work well, and that top military personnel declined to observe the tests. and yes its not expected to be in service until 2012. the israeli system on the other hand, was tested in very realistic enviroments on moving vehicles and was highly successful, as well as being available, TODAY. As far as what i understand, and i could be wrong, i believe the system intercepts any object that is headed towards it if its going fast enough, so i think rpg type is irrelevent and i think it can even intercept anti-tank missiles. again, i could be wrong. i do agree with what you said about the infantry being in danger of getting hit by shrapnel from the intercepted rpg. i was wondering about that myself yesterday. i could imagine a group of dismounted infantry would be in alot of danger if they were standing near a vehicle with one of these systems.
after i read todays update to this story, its really starting to look to me like its money and politics holding back this system from getting to our troops in a timely manner.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
-Laughs-
I don't want to wear an Friendly-Fire vest next to my tag, I'll I'm saying.

As for firing the round? I just got back from Afghanistan, thank you, and while our M16's do have trouble in the sand, that's a given, their penetration value is fine. If you can't manage to puncture the chassis of an unarmored, civillian vehichle, something is wrong with your equipment.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join