Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, May 7, 2007.
This has gone too far, for too long.
We've been through this before. This system has worked well in testing, but under perfect conditions. In Iraq, where the fight is now urban, a buck-shot counter measure system is not ideal. We run mixed op patrols with Strykers, humvee's, Bradley's, and infantry walking along side. When a protectile, or RPG comes flying in, the system is going to activate, and may very well intercept the projectile, but at what cost to the surrounding infantry, and/or civilians? I think the most telling fact about the TROPHY system is that Israel didn't use it during their incursion into Lebanon. Why not?
The Torphy system received better grades across the board for performance under all situations, so Im not sure what you are trying to say. Because Israel didnt deploy them (which I dont know to be true anyhow), that is all the info one needs to make your assessment?
RW, I truly dont know why you are making excuses for what can be clearly seen as a case of corporate cronyism. Do you really care so little about the safety of our soldiers as to make weak arguments on behalf of Raytheon? I doubt they need you to give them your approval, theyve got billions of dollars in politicians already bought and voting accordingly. But, since youre the omniscient one...okay.
Yeah, I care so little that's why I try to undermine them everyday. Afterall, my brother is only a disabled vet.
I'm sticking up for nobody. People who think that this system is perfect and operational are wrong. Under ideal situations, aka, a test range, it works better than anything out there. In a combat setting like the one we're facing in Iraq, i.e. urban combat with mixed op patrols, that system is flawed. When an RPG comes flying in and you have civilians and soldiers standing in the line of fire, what's going to happen? The Israeli's didn't use it Lebanon, why? I saw BOR with Myers and William Hunt on, and Hunt told her flat out that her assertation was incorrect, that this system was workable, and ready for Iraq deployment. The only manner in which it might help would be with respect to convoy's, but I'm not sure if it has a deactivation mechanism for use in passing through urban area's. Beyond that, there are questions regarding it's weight (most up-armored vehicles are at, or beyond their weight capacity), cost ($200-300k per vehicle), and networking capabilities(most vehicles including Humvee's and Strykers are already short on electrical capabilites). For obvious reasons, there isn't alot of information about the system available, as it's new, and top secret. Most of the info out there is specualtion & heresay, based on anonymous sources. Anything is possible, I'll forever concede that, but the fact that Israel didn't use it kinda tells me something.
"The Army faced mounting criticism about not considering the Trophy system for the protection of its armored vehicles deployed in Iraq. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey A, Sorenson, the Army‚Äôs deputy for acquisition and systems management explained the decision (AFPS) saying the Israeli system is not a ‚Äúproduceable item.‚ÄĚ The Israelis have been working on the Trophy system for 10 or 11 years, Sorenson said. ‚ÄúIf this thing was ready to go, my question would be, why wasn‚Äôt it on the particular tanks that went into Lebanon?‚ÄĚ he said. No Israeli Merkava tanks carried the Trophy system, he said.
Other problems include the fact that the system right now has no reloading capability. Once it fires, that side of the vehicle is vulnerable. Which brings up another shortcoming: the Trophy can only be mounted to protect one axis. This means officials would have to mount multiple missile systems on every vehicle. The Quick Kill missile has 360-degree capability and a reload capability.
Another worry is collateral damage, he said. ‚ÄúIn a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,‚ÄĚ Sorenson said. ‚ÄúThat is a concern we have that we haven‚Äôt fully evaluated.‚ÄĚ
Procuring and fielding items to the US Army is very difficult. Are the parts available ..... do we have th correct integration kits and installation kits? ...... is there a logistical change required ..... what tactics need to be changed to integrate this with current doctrine ..... what training is required?
How does it integrate into the network? Does it recognize Civilian/Friend movement?
The list goes on and on. Now..there is a Rapid Fielding Initiative that takes items that are COT and places them in units hands...but usually on a much smaller scale. Is there resistance to this because of the money invested in FCS......probably a bit....I do not deny the pull of the large defense contractors. But is is not a black and white as MSNBC makes it out to be.
(This was all covered a couple of months ago in another thread)
I agree that the implementation of this is decidedly difficult. My problem is that given the choice between a two year wait time and a seven year wait time, one would assume that the lesser wait time would save lives. And yet, to get the thing up and running from scratch as they are planning to do, adds time and testing to the mix and lives will be lost as a result.
Is Trophy perfect? Probably not. Is it better than anything coming down the pipeline from Raytheon...most definitely.
Again, the head to head proving cannot be ignored.
I agree...if it works and fits into our doctrine then it should be tested and fielded by the Army. I do not agree that the Raytheon product will be inferior..... the Raytheon product is really being developed to be integrated onto the FCS systems..... completely different in all ways from the legacy force vehicles (M1/Bradley) and the Stryker.
Regardless....your initial one liner caught my attetnion as someone who does not understand the process/issues involved in fielding something like this.... unfortunately it takes time...and the process is laborious and political (ie...cancel a program within Congressmen/woman A's district.... no support on the next military pay hike bill.....etc) I wish it would change but Congress/DoD/Army/Industry all are a part of the big Acquistion problem. I don't like it either but it is far more broad than this administration or the DoD.
True that. The acquisition problem just keeps on reminding me of Ike and his very prescient warnings about the complex.
It seems to me that someone was lying when they claimed all these things that Trophy couldn't do, in favor of Raytheons version, when it came out that Trophy could do these things and do them better than Raytheons version. The whole thing smacks of conflict of interest.
Thats the problem -conflict of interest and the potential for that to delay something that could save lives.
This sort of issue is nothing new, see the problems associated with US torpedo's during WW2.
So along with the chimp in chief, you accept mediocrity even when it is harming our armed forces. Interesting.
Forget torpedo's, look at our armor in WW II. We were significantly deficient, yet continued to mass produce Sherman's, Grants, and Chaffee's. We produced them because they were being manufactured in Detroit, and were railed to the coast. The tunnels were not large enough to fit anything bigger and more capable. So instead of designing something that could compete with Panthers and Tigers head on, we built the inferior product in larger numbers in the hopes of overwhelming the fewer German tanks. BTW, the Germans used to call the Shermans "Tommy Cookers" cuz they would light up in flames from virtually any round that hit them.
I truly hope this becomes a comparison of our WWII war footing under Roosevelt vs Iraq war footing under Bush.
I welcome that debate. Bring it on.
What we're talking about is how weaponry and war are never perfect. We had similar issues with the M-16 in the early years in Vietnam.
I know I know. You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had. I heard Rumsfeld say that.
Four years in, do you think we may be able to adapt a little?? Maybe the decider needs to get to work and stop spending so much time on the golf course.
We do, and have been adapting. Do we do a perfect job of it? Aboslutely not. Could we do better? I'm pretty sure we could. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. Will it, or could it be perfect? Nope. It has never been in past wars, this war, and won't be in the next. Wars are always unpredictable. To bring a little levity to the topic, they're like Forest Gumps box'o'choc'lates in that you never know what you're going to get. Sadly, this war seems to have been run by Forest himself (or maybe Forest could have run it better).
So noone warned the decider that he needed far more troops to begin with?
Noone warned him of debaathification, and the security issues that would result?
Noone warned him about what might happen if we failed to secure the weapons depots? Failed to prevent looting? Failed to secure borders? Failed to get utilities up and running.
Noone told him these warnings?? Is that your premise?? That this is all "on the fly"???
C'mon, if thats your position, you are the truly ignorant one. You are suggesting that this president went to war with zero advisors and is making it up as he goes. And yet, given this track record, you are perfectly willing to now make the argument that we are on the right track now, and that everything has changed. That in spite of four years of calamity, we have something left to win, which you cannot precisely define.
Um...to bring some more levity...would you like to buy a bridge?
Weren't we talking about weaponry? Trophy, torpedo's, tanks, the M-16, etc... I was referring to weaponry and such. If you want to discuss the strategies used to this point, or the decisions that were made, that's an entirely different animal. You're not going to get me to defend mission accomplished, debaathification, or disbanding the army. All of those I criticized as soon as they happened. It was arrogance, and ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. They mopped the floor with the Iraqi army, got a hard on, and thought the rest was going to be a piece of cake. Boy were they wrong. The larger force issue is debatable. How/why? Cuz the smaller force size would have most likely been sufficient had they not disbanded the Army or debaathified. Also, had they gone in with 300-400,000 troops, they would only have been able to sustain the load for a couple of years tops. So larger force might not have been needed had certain decisions been made correctly, nor would it have been sustainable if the sitiuation would have been negative regardless of the decisions made.
I was referring in a general way to the errors made and the inability to adapt in a timely manner- whether it be weapons systems or tactical or strategic decision making. It seems when Rapes run a war, they do so on a basis that serves their corporation-first mentality, and has little to do with planning. Im glad you agree with me in this.
Because they could be planning right now to get it right, and to get an anti-RPG system to our forces immediately. But alas, they only serve their masters in the death industry and therefore, our troops will have to continue to bite the bullet while Raytheon gets up to speed.
We've been through the Trophy system already. You seem to insist, like Lisa Myers that it's a smal dunk, others don't think so. The Israeli's, the people who have this slam dunk system, didn't use it in Lebanon. Seriously now, if the system was so infalable, and so perfect, why didn't the country who created it, use it when they themselves were at war?
Im not sure, but it still measures up better than anything else out there, so whats your point?
Separate names with a comma.