Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 09/06/2006 View Tue 09/05/2006 View Mon 09/04/2006 View Sun 09/03/2006 View Sat 09/02/2006 View Fri 09/01/2006 View Thu 08/31/2006
1
2006-09-06 Science & Technology
Army shuns system to combat RPGs: "Money & politics"
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Bernie 2006-09-06 12:11|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 the Army brass considers the Israeli system a threat to an Army program to develop an RPG defense system .
.
.
.
The $70 million contract for that program had been awarded to an Army favorite, Raytheon. Raytheon’s contract constitutes a small but important part of the Army’s massive modernization program called the Future Combat System (FCS), which has been under fire in Congress on account of ballooning costs and what critics say are unorthodox procurement practices.
.
.
.
Raytheon’s system won’t be ready for fielding until 2011 at the earliest.
Posted by gromgoru 2006-09-06 12:57||   2006-09-06 12:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh for craps sake... put the resisting army brass and Ratheon interest groups in a Stryker and send them to patrol Iraq's suicide mile.

Bet they will have one of Israel's systems on the vehicle within a week...

Blackvenom-2001
Posted by Blackvenom-2001 2006-09-06 12:57||   2006-09-06 12:57|| Front Page Top

#3 “This debate has nothing, zero, to do with capability or timeliness. It’s about money and politics. You’ve got a gigantic program [FCS] and contractors with intertwined interests.

Welcome to the beltway. Hope the COL enjoys his post-retirement Ratheon job.
Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-06 13:04||   2006-09-06 13:04|| Front Page Top

#4 "Reported" by Lisa Meyers. I would not believe a would she says.

The fact is the Stryker already has a passive system that protects pretty well against RPGs. There are reactive armor systems that can be used on tanks, Bradleys and LAVs.

When you add the fact that the Jihadis can't hit what they aim at, do we really need to spend $300,000 per vehicle?

I suspect that the Israelis are more interested in the anti-ATGM capabilities of the system. Something we have not encountered in Iraq.

Al
Posted by Frozen Al">Frozen Al  2006-09-06 13:06||   2006-09-06 13:06|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't know that the Israeli system has the ability to counter an incoming RPG without pretty devastating effect on any dismounts or infantry in the area. I can see where there would be application for it, but not as a general operating condition.
Given the cost of the vehicle and the troops inside, $300,000 is a bargain if the system actually performs, so I don't see this being about the money - or at least not about THAT money. If it's about contracts and graft, and not about combat utility, then I'd say charges of treason would be in order.
Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore  2006-09-06 13:34||   2006-09-06 13:34|| Front Page Top

#6 How long does it take an RPG to travel 50 yards?

If a system can respond fast enough, how close will the explosion be at intercept?

The Navy has had CIWS for years; couldn't it hit an RPG, if fired far enough away? Of course, with the 6 - 20 mm guns, there would be a modest amount of collateral damage, I suppose ....
Posted by Bobby 2006-09-06 14:16||   2006-09-06 14:16|| Front Page Top

#7 The Raytheon system is not the only counter-RPG system being evaluated. There are others. Now whether those other systems get to program or not is another story.
Posted by remoteman 2006-09-06 17:01||   2006-09-06 17:01|| Front Page Top

#8 Darn. I knew this would happen if I had to take medical leave. Everything was going along just fine in May.

Seriously, if LockMart, Boeing, GD, can do a better and cheaper job, I'd rather they won.

Bobby: It would probably be a tad difficult to mount that puppy on anything ground mobile.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2006-09-06 20:09|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2006-09-06 20:09|| Front Page Top

#9 Too heavy? All that DU adds up?
Posted by Bobby 2006-09-06 21:14||   2006-09-06 21:14|| Front Page Top

#10 Israeli systems tend to be designed to fit the uniquely limited needs they face. Within those parameters, they are often quite good -- but they don't always scale up for the size and the range of operations we need a system to support.

Their Tactical High Energy Laser is a case in point - too large to be mobile, high use of chemicals to charge the laser, but potentially it might have been of use near their border. The systems we went on to design support a much wider set of uses.

That's why I call BS on this article as written.

That said, US Army commanders are taught to seek and utilize an 80% solution on the battlefield rather than wait for perfect info/solutions. So I'm sure there are some who want to get their hands on this system to try it out.

Deploying it for real, and especially deploying it instead of a defensive capability designed to fit into the big FCS picture, is a whole 'nuther story however.
Posted by lotp 2006-09-06 21:18||   2006-09-06 21:18|| Front Page Top

23:57 Cheaderhead
23:56 Zenster
23:54 anymouse
23:54 Zenster
23:51 Zenster
23:46 Zenster
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:34 FOTSGreg
23:33 djohn66
23:32 trailing wife
23:25 FOTSGreg
23:22 Zenster
23:16 Zenster
23:16 DMFD
23:14 Zenster
23:12 BH
23:10 Swamp Blondie
23:09 twobyfour
23:06 Elmert Crosh5077
23:05 trailing wife
23:04 twobyfour
23:03 Barbara Skolaut
23:00 Mike
22:57 Barbara Skolaut
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com