Israel's Trophy System Now or U.S. Raytheon System in 2011?

LancerMc

New Member
The U.S.'s NBC news had an interesting report about the U.S. Army's unwillingness to field Israel's new Trophy ADS for tanks and armored vehicles. The report describe even with a 98% kill probability on RPG's, the Army still feels that Trophy is not an effective system at this time. The Army would hope use Raytheon's ADS system in development down the road, even though the earliest the system can be fielded would be 2011. According to the report, other Pentagon sources say the Army is down playing the abilities of Trophy to appease Raytheon and their $70 million dollar contract.

While I am all for supporting the development of new technology in the U.S. and the support of a great company like Raytheon, I would rather see Trophy fielded now to save lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the Army is putting to much emphasis on supporting our home companies, but a ADS system would save lives now, and if its not an American system, who cares! Everyone else buys a lot of U.S. hardware, but why can't the U.S. military buy foreign equipment? 2011 is to late to help in Iraq, so the Army should suck it up and use Trophy.
 

TrangleC

New Member
LancerMc said:
I think the Army is putting to much emphasis on supporting our home companies
The problem might be that the army answers to the gouvernment and the gouvernment answers to the defence industry.
Saving the lifes of a few soldiers isn't a big priority in this system.
And after all, every destroyed Humvee, Stryker or Abrams is one that has to be replaced and thus means money to the defence industry.

(Yes, i read Chomsky.)
 

TrangleC

New Member
I'm saying the CEOs of all the big corporations don't give a rat's ass about your safety and the politicians give more about what this CEOs want than about what you want.
And even if a CEO should be just a good guy and concerned about you (which is unlikely because the good guys normally don't make it up to the top), that still wouldn't help you much, because it is the nature and the purpose of a corporation to only consider shareholder value and making more money.
And if a blown up Stryker means mo money to a corporation, then a blown up Stryker is a good thing for them.
 

PommeDeGuerre

New Member
How much money is invested in the training of a soldier?

edit: I think people should be careful when assigning sinister - treasonous even - motives to people.
 

TrangleC

New Member
PommeDeGuerre said:
How much money is invested in the training of a soldier?
It's not the corporations who pay for it, nor for the funeral, so it doesn't matter, does it?

It is not a sinister conspiration theory, it's simply a fact and the original nature of a corporation that it needs to make money and doesn't care for anything else. When they can fire tens of thousands of people and destroy lifes and families that way, just to increase the stockmarket worth and because it is shareholder value, then what is too "evil" for them?
It's just the system. I know, i sound like a old hippie, but it simply is true.

I'm actually quite rational and pragmatic on this issue, believe it or not.

If you look at it from the other way... If you give some professional your money so he makes more money for you, you don't want him to be a nice guy and lose it or only make a tiny amount of more money for you. You want him to be a bad ass maneater who fights and does everything and uses every opportunity to make as much money for you as possible, right?
That is perfectly understandable and nothing evil. Still the results of that combined are what hippies call "the system".

I'm no left wing wacko or conspiration theory freak when i say that the world is pretty much divided in winners and losers. More than 80 percent of the stockmarket belong to about 1% of the population. They simply own everything and they are pretty much living in their own world, far above normal people like us and like the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How many sons of the really rich and influencial are serving in dangerous positions? Nowadays, with a professional army that doesn't show so obviously anymore, but already in the days of the draft, they had their ways of avoiding it, didn't they?
The present president is a good example for that.

And when you think that all the fancy military equipment we are talking about here is build and purchased to serve you and to to protect you and your family, think again. They are there to protect "their" investments, to project "their" power into the world and they belong to "them", including the pilot who so proudly flies the fighter jet and thinks he kicks ass for his country when he bombs some sheephurdlers somewhere at the end of the world.

When an average John Anybody looks into the sky and sees a F-22 fly there and is proud of it, that is just like an israely slave in the times of Moses looking proudly at the pyramids he build under the wips of the egyptian guards. They are not yours, they are "theirs". You just payd for it.

And it is the same on the other side. The Saudi family for example. They encouraged anti-american and anti-western sentiments for decades and supportet islamist groups while at the same time playing golf with the western elites and the US president (whoever that was at that time).
Just look at the decades old friendship and business ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.

It has always been like that. Look at medieval Europe. Kings and Emperors were all related to each other and met for tea parties while the peasants of their countries were making war against each other.

The elites of the world don't hate each other. (Ever saw the pictures of Thomas J. Watson, the founder of IBM sitting on a table and having breackfast with Adolf Hitler?) They do business with each other and are the best friends. They just want the masses to hate each other because that makes them easier to controll.
Do you think George Orwell wrote his book "1984" just about a vivid but meaningless nightmare he had the night before? (I strongly recomend to read it iof you haven't. You'll see many things that seem pretty familiar from the reality we life in. And while you're on it, read Noam Chomsky.)

And they have no real sense of nationality. When you are rich and a part of that world's elite, you can live and prosper everywhere. The USA is just their favourite place to live because it's the perfect place for them. A country where you can buy politicians or can buy yourself into politics and everybody knows it but nobody calls it corruption. A place where you can hire and fire people without problems and they won't fight it because they believe into the american dream and rather dream of being part of the elite one day themselves instead of thinking about how you could cut the power of that elite and if ever one of them starts to fight, you can just call him a communist and a bad american and the fight is won.
And a place where people easily can be convinced to go to war by appealing to their patriotism and anger and often religiously fuelled will to fight "evil" (what you tell them is "evil", which often are the people you later play golf with), while it really is only to make more money for you, the elite.
War is a great way to squeeze money out of the masses. Not just because you want to sell weapons or because you can bomb foreign competitors out of a oil producing country to take it over yourself, but also because war means fear and if the masses are frightened, you can controll them easier and can take away rights from them and convince them that it is neccessary to cut social spending because you need that money for more weapons.

The problem with all of this is that it doesn't matter whether it is sinister or not, it just is natural. Rich people want to get richer and doing it like that is a very simple and effective way to get richer and as long as all the poor people want to get rich too, they will do what the rich people want.

And who can throw the first stone? Who knows whether he or she would do it different if he or she would have been born into one of those powerful families? And who knows whether he or she would still care for the lifes of a few soldiers coming from the masses?


I really strolled away from the topic here, i know, but i'll go back on topic and sum it all up:
Raytheon belongs to the people who made the gouvernment of the USA and the israely company that sells Trophy does not (i guess so, but who knows). It doesn't matter whether a few more soldiers will die till they got their system ready and if a few more vehicles will be blown up and need to be replaced by tax money, that is an additional benefit to the shareholders of the companies that produce those vehicles.
 
Last edited:

Big-E

Banned Member
Grand Danois said:
Sheep are sheep. They do not deserve to be used as hurdles. ;)
Trangle seems to think corporations set public policy. They don't, they react to it.
 

jgurzick

New Member
iSRAEL'S TROPHY SYSTEM

PERHAPS THE ARMY AND THE FCS SYSTEM REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD EXPLAIN WHY THE TROPHY SYSTEM IS NOT EFFECTIVE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. 98% EFFECTIVE IS PRETTY GOOD ESPECIALLY SINCE THE US HAS HAD PLENTY OF SYSTEMS THAT HAVE NOT REACHED THAT LEVEL ,THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT THE TOPHY SYSTEMS 98% EFFECTIVENESS IS ONLY BECAUSE ONE ROUND HIT THE TAIL OF A RPG NOT THE WARHEAD. i THINK THE AMERICAN POPULACE SHOULD BE GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN SOMETHING THAT WORKS AND IS CAPABLE OF PROTECTING SOLDIEDERS LIVES NOW AND SOMETHING THAT IS ONLY RAYTHEONS DREAMWARE 5 YEARS DOWN THE PIKE.

I THINK THAT UNLESS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS GIVEN TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THE FCS MANAGEMENT TEAM SHOULD BE HELD TO A STANDARD THAT SAYS IF AMERICAN LIVES ARE LOST DUE TO NOT HAVING A SYSTEM THAT WORKS IN PLACE, MAYBE THEN WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHY NOT BUYING THE TROPHY SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAR CRIME. IF AMERICAN SOLIDERS CAN BE CONVICTED OF CRIMES THEN MAYBE THE ARMY MANAGEMENT TEAM SHOULD ALSO BE CAPABLE OF BEING CONVICTED OF THE DEATHS OF AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
jgurzick said:
PERHAPS THE ARMY AND THE FCS SYSTEM REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD EXPLAIN WHY THE TROPHY SYSTEM IS NOT EFFECTIVE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. 98% EFFECTIVE IS PRETTY GOOD ESPECIALLY SINCE THE US HAS HAD PLENTY OF SYSTEMS THAT HAVE NOT REACHED THAT LEVEL ,THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT THE TOPHY SYSTEMS 98% EFFECTIVENESS IS ONLY BECAUSE ONE ROUND HIT THE TAIL OF A RPG NOT THE WARHEAD. i THINK THE AMERICAN POPULACE SHOULD BE GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN SOMETHING THAT WORKS AND IS CAPABLE OF PROTECTING SOLDIEDERS LIVES NOW AND SOMETHING THAT IS ONLY RAYTHEONS DREAMWARE 5 YEARS DOWN THE PIKE.

I THINK THAT UNLESS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION IS GIVEN TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THE FCS MANAGEMENT TEAM SHOULD BE HELD TO A STANDARD THAT SAYS IF AMERICAN LIVES ARE LOST DUE TO NOT HAVING A SYSTEM THAT WORKS IN PLACE, MAYBE THEN WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHY NOT BUYING THE TROPHY SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAR CRIME. IF AMERICAN SOLIDERS CAN BE CONVICTED OF CRIMES THEN MAYBE THE ARMY MANAGEMENT TEAM SHOULD ALSO BE CAPABLE OF BEING CONVICTED OF THE DEATHS OF AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN.
Is there some reason your typing in all CAPS? It's rather annoying you know.
 

jgurzick

New Member
Perhaps the army and the FCS system representatives should explain why the trophy system is not effective to the American public. 98% effective is pretty good especially since the us has had plenty of systems that have not reached that level the way I understand it the Trophy systems 98% effectiveness is only because one round hit the tail of RPG not the warhead. i think the American populace should be given a choice between something that works and is capable of protecting soldiers lives now and something that is only Raytheons dreamware 5 years down the pike.

i think that unless a reasonable explanation is given to the American public that the fcs management team should be held to a standard that says if American lives are lost due to not having a system that works in place, maybe then we should consider why not buying the trophy system should not be considered a war crime. if American soldiers can be convicted of crimes then maybe the army management team should also be capable of being convicted of the deaths of American fighting men.

Sorry, that the all caps annoyed you but maybe the content is slightly more important, perhaps you should think more about what I said, rather than wether it was in all caps.

I remember when the M16 was first issued, it did not function at anywhere near 100 % effectiveness, I remember the dead bodies of soldiers and marines found trying to clear jams of their rifles. Better education, cleaning equipment, a chrome bore made the Mr Stoner's weapon much more effective.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Is there some reason your typing in all CAPS? It's rather annoying you know.
Most likely fell asleep on keyboard, impressive what he types while napping though:D
I did catch the transcript of this. i'll go with the flow and say the US Military Industrial complex does have a big say in the way companies are given priority. And to help that, senators in the US, as in Aus at times, ensure that their States get the Contracts to build the screws that go on the Raytheon System.
Now, for the Trophy, The end of the transcript i read, i'd say from the program, said that the Marines at least were looking at the Israeli rather then Ratheon anti-RPG device.
An official involved with those tests told NBC that Trophy “worked in every case. The only anomaly was that in one test, the Trophy round hit the RPG’s tail instead of its head. But according to our test criteria, the system was 30 for 30.”

“There are some in the Army who would be extremely concerned that if the Trophy system worked, then the Army would have no need to go forward with the Raytheon system and the program might be terminated,” says Steven Schooner, who teaches procurement law at both George Washington University and the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s School.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14686871/
 

powerslavenegi

New Member
Reading too much

While I second what Trangle C had to say about the Rich and the modern system where money does all the talking,I would like to differ from him regarding US Army's unwillingness in fielding TROPHY .The arguments that manufacturers of Strykers and other Armoured vehicles will make more money in absense of TROPHY is the main reason for it's rejection is lame.As a matter of fact I did not see TROPHY's being of much use or rather being put to use in recent Israel Lebanon conflict(would we say the same about Israel's manufacturers and Gov ?).
 

Big-E

Banned Member
jgurzick said:
Sorry, that the all caps annoyed you but maybe the content is slightly more important, perhaps you should think more about what I said, rather than wether it was in all caps.
I'm simply trying to get you to obey the rules of the forum.

21. Do not post in ALL CAPS letters on the forums. Its considered rude!

I also read what you said and find your remarks inflammatory and reckless.

The comment "the army management team should also be capable of being convicted of the deaths of American fighting men" is completely out of line. The management team has little to do with selecting Trophy, all they can do is recommend it to Congress. It is ultimately in their hands wether or not Trophy is incorporated. If you want to go around threatening people at least pick the ones who are responsible.
 

jgurzick

New Member
iSRAEL'S TROPHY SYSTEM

I am not threatening anyone, however those that have made the decision not to use an effective system rather than wait for a developed here perfect system are wrong, in my view 100% wrong. The lives that they prefer not to protect are American lives and I think there is no reason why they should not explain and be accountable and responsible to the American public as to why the Trophy system should not be used.

Having been both in the military and worked for military contractor I have unfortunately seen where american lives have been wasted waiting on new systems to be developed, when alternative solutions have been available.

In my view when something is available and is working it should be used not wait for a perfect solution. If there are adequate reasons for not adopting thr Trophy system then make them public. The American public has that right and if the public can accept the deaths of Americans while waiting 5 years for a better solution, then I find myself in disagreement with the American public. However those that made the decision not to use a working system are criminaly responsible for any deaths caused by not using a working system.

However, if this decision is solely based on its a foreign product, not invented here. then the people who made that decision should be made to explain wyo allowing American military deaths is preferable to not using a working system.

As for Raytheon there is no reason why if they have a better idea that it could not be developed while trophy is deployed. We have done that for years.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
wow jgurzick, ur off to a great start.
Did u mention also that its not exactly cheap. I'm not saying they are putting a price on soldiers heads, but at $300,000 to $400,000 each, then odds on Congress would look at that, say "ok, we'll give you $70million for the trophy", thats only 200+ sure that may save, 50 Strykers who come under fire, but what about the other Divisions, if the Army decide to give a token few, whats the point? odds on that vehicle won't come under fire, its murpheys law really. Raytheon in all fairness might make a cheaper, and still effective unit, that by 2011 will become standard across the board.
And yes the US has a big budget, but thats what they have, a budget. Congress would be pricks at times when it comes to somethings,Big-E might know better then most of us, luckily ADF has a semi-open cheque for defence, and i say semi cause we can't ask for everything, we gotta be careful with what we buy...cept the seasprites, jeez :hitwall
To make up they might look at tougher armour for the vehicles rather then a device which stops them.
 

jgurzick

New Member
iSRAEL'S TROPHY SYSTEM

My question is how long has Raytheon been developing their ADS system? Having seen and read articles about active defensive systems for FCS for at least 5 years, the concept of active defensive systems is not new. If the Raytheon system was today a working system, then it could be tested against the Trophy system. Then a decision about which system the US should adopt could be made rationally. However, since the Raytheon system does not currently exist, I find it hard to compete a working Trophy system versus one that is only on paper or maybe a protype system.

Raytheon wants five years to develop their system, a system that may not even see the light of day. Would the Army sacrifice the Raytheon system for another FCS system especially if there were budget cuts. Five years is a long time for any promised or proposed system. Could the Army or the contractor promise no delays? What if the proposed system becomes too expensive will it be sacrificed for other systems. The Army did NOT guarantee absolutely that there would be no delays beyond 2011 or that the sysem would be of a cost that we could afford. Both the Army and the contractor have only to look at history to know that many good ideas get axed along the way. As this system will be in a large part software, can they guarantee that there won't be software problems?

The FCS concept is a concept that may never fully be implemented due to budget cuts, program failures, cost overruns. FCS decisions such as wheels versus tracks reequired prototypes be built and tested before a final decision was made. Although their were parochial feelings on each side of the agrument prototpes were basically used too define the winners. Again there wasn't an actual system versus a paper one, but actual systems versus each other. You may have disagreed with the final decision but that was a call based on actual data. Raytheon does not have a working system today although they may have several in prototype format. What is to prevent Raytheon from working with Rafael to develop a better Trophy system while building rheir own. For one thing I think that people are afraid of competing with a Trophy system that if adopted would be hard to displace in 5 years. So it is better to stop it from being adopted and used now and hope that the Raytheon system can deliver everything it promises. Of course, it wont deliver everthing on day one, nothing ever does. Would it be better on day one than the Trophy product, I don't know. Would it be better than the Trophy 2006 product it could be would it be better than the Trophy 2011 product, I highly doubt it.

Aircraft manufactures have long tested competing designs against one another, but not a working system versus a paper one. What if the F22 design were suddenly pitched against a paper product would the military refuse to adopt or cancel the F22 because the paper product offered more.

If we were going to be out of Iraq in six months, maybe I could agree with the decision. However, as we are not going to be out of Iraq prior to the 2008 election (at best), all I can forsee are mounting casulities that could possibly be avoided with the Trophy system.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
I don't see what the big deal is anyway. The armor of an Abrahms, Bradly or Striker are more than enough to stop an RPG. It's only the smaller vehicles like HumVs and trucks that are in danger. Trophy isn't going to go on these. I see no reason to waste the funds to rush this into production if the only threats are RPGs. Unless Trophy can stop IEDs it's not worth it.
 
Last edited:

jgurzick

New Member
Maybe you better not look at all the armoredvehicles wearing the cage like M113, Strikers, Bradleys, AAAV's and then tell me that there isn't any need for Trophy. by the way the other vbehicles need to be replaceds by IED proof vehicles. Or [perhaps you dont ca5re about casualties?
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
TrangleC said:
I'm saying the CEOs of all the big corporations don't give a rat's ass about your safety and the politicians give more about what this CEOs want than about what you want.
And even if a CEO should be just a good guy and concerned about you (which is unlikely because the good guys normally don't make it up to the top), that still wouldn't help you much, because it is the nature and the purpose of a corporation to only consider shareholder value and making more money.
And if a blown up Stryker means mo money to a corporation, then a blown up Stryker is a good thing for them.
Well, speaking as someone who lives on the commercial side of the fence, I would have to say that in some instances, that might have some weight. But with regard to the US defense industry, a lot of the people who make key decisions in that industry are ex-military and very good people.

There is not much respect for Boeing or SAIC (for differing reasons, Boeing for seeming to not know where their ass is and SAIC for not paying until 18 months after the fact) but you are not going to hear someone slag them as they "won" the contract and you have to do business with them.

My beef with Boeing and the survivability suite for the FCS is that I was asked to provide samples of a system and it was going to be used (and presumably fielded) in such a way as to make it entirely useless. So I said "no" well, actually I said "Are you fucking kidding me?! No". Did I make the right decision? Yes. I've lost potentially millions, but no one is going to die from the inconceivably stupid design proposed by quite intelligent people who know a lot about making planes, but absolutely nothing about making AFV's.

These sort of things become "known" around the industry and Boeing has been quietly moved to one side to let people who know how to do it, get on with it. GDLS for example. As for me, I lost business for not being diplomatic in my expression of disbelief, but I maintain credibility and can probably contribute at a later date. And like I said the people making these strange decisions have either learnt very quickly or been moved aside in turn.

Anyway, this is just a small expose. There are many factors in getting a project to fruition, but I reject the thought that "good guys come last" and all corporate leaders are a bunch of money grabbing bastards that would sell their first born to make a buck.

Big-E said:
I don't see what the big deal is anyway. The armor of an Abrahms, Bradly or Striker are more than enough to stop an RPG. It's only the smaller vehicles like HumVs and trucks that are in danger. Trophy isn't going to go on these. I see no reason to waste the funds to rush this into production if the only threats are RPGs. Unless Trophy can stop IEDs it's not worth it.
Trophy can't protect you against an IED, and its incredibly expensive compared to other more traditional (and increasingly effective) systems. I say "increasingly effective" as obviously current systems have been found wanting in the first place to create the environment where a system like trophy is considered. But this is like railway technology. Everyone thought Maglev was the future of high speed transport, until the Japanese and French figured out how to make wheeled rail go faster, such that it made Maglev irrelevant. Same with trophy and other active systems. They have their niche, but when push comes to shove technological advances in the passive realm will make them redundant for all but the most specialized of circumstances.

Trophy would be deployed now, if it were not for cost and (what everyone forgets about) its dangerous to use around your own troops.

Cheers

W
 
Top