-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
TROPHY system.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Puffnstuff
Lifer
I read an article on msnbc last night and the trophy system was not deployed in Lebanon. Had it been the Israeli's wouldn't have lost any armor.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
Again, essentially any tanks can take a direct hit from an RPG especially on the front armor. The real problem is when 1) it is fired accurately and hits something, 2) impacts on the top, where the armor is much weaker, 3) is not a dud, and 4) Is one of the types actually capable of penetrating the armor.
feralkid
Lifer
Yawn...and if you pulled your head out of your *** you'd know that you are full of ****.
Liberals, Democrats and Republicans support more protection for our sons and daughters fighting in the Middle East. Do you even recall the stink raised by "liberals" over the lack of armor in our HMMVVE's? We all have friends and family at risk in this war, and for you to make such a lame partisan statement when our soldiers are dying is foul and unpatriotic. A$$clown!
:thumbsdown:
KGB
Diamond Member
ProfJohn
Lifer
Thank you so much for that post.
I believe this is where Rummy or Bush calls the people in the Army opposed to this system in to their office and bitch slaps them. At the same time congress should get involved, in a non-partisian way. This isn't a Republican v. Democrat issue.
For all the grief that Rummy gets lets not forget the effort he has been making in trying to change the way the military thinks and operates. Like any government agency there is a tremendous resistence to any type of change in the military. I think Rumsfeld's long term legacy will be the changes he has made to the Pentagon and how it operates. The question is wether he will be able to make enough changes before he leaves or is driven from power, or will the military just return to its old ways after he is gone.
SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
Err, the TROPHY system wasn't deployed in Lebanon - Goverment didn't fund this in time. This is yet another one of the lessons of this war for IDF.
What I heard varies between "No TROPHY at all" to "4 Tanks had TROPHY systems and managed to remain unscratched even after multiple missile attacks".
I think Hizbullah already proven well enough that terrorists, especially state funded groups, don't settle for simple RPGs anymore and are using Russian Kornets instead that can penetrate, or at least inflict heavy damage to all modern tanks. If it took out a Mk4 Merkava it will also take out an M1, let alone an APC.
In the Israeli TV they showed a movie about the TROPHY, it showed one of the system developers sitting in an APC with RPG shot at. The system obviously worked 😉
Starbuck1975
Lifer
The FCS concept and subsequent contracts came into effect well before we invaded Iraq...I don't buy into paranoia of a military industrial complex, because the defense industry only builds weapon systems in response to government demand through contracts. Most defense contractors will not even invest in developing a weapon system or proposal for one without a government contract already up for bid.
Look at the weapon systems fielded to our armed forces over the past several decades...I can think of very few that were a "waste of money" or "pieces of junk." Although some weapon systems, vehicles and platforms have found themselves serving in missions for which they were not designed, the HMMWV being a noteable example.
Similarly, the defense industry has taken cues from the private sector in introducing processes and technologies to actually cut production and sustainment costs for the government.
If the Army determines that they need TROPHY for the situation in Iraq today, there is a process external to FCS and the Raytheon system that would provide for that. While TROPHY is proven to work in training scenarios, lets see how it does in a combat environment before accusing the Army or Raytheon of wrongdoing.
Perhaps Israel should let us borrow a few TROPHY systems to see how effective they are before we commit to purchase orders...we have certainly shared plenty of military technologies with the IDF.
Look at the weapon systems fielded to our armed forces over the past several decades...I can think of very few that were a "waste of money" or "pieces of junk." Although some weapon systems, vehicles and platforms have found themselves serving in missions for which they were not designed, the HMMWV being a noteable example.
Similarly, the defense industry has taken cues from the private sector in introducing processes and technologies to actually cut production and sustainment costs for the government.
If the Army determines that they need TROPHY for the situation in Iraq today, there is a process external to FCS and the Raytheon system that would provide for that. While TROPHY is proven to work in training scenarios, lets see how it does in a combat environment before accusing the Army or Raytheon of wrongdoing.
Perhaps Israel should let us borrow a few TROPHY systems to see how effective they are before we commit to purchase orders...we have certainly shared plenty of military technologies with the IDF.
SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
IMHO the TROPHY has been tested by the US, that what led to a demand inside the US Army to get these systems.
Triumph
Lifer
Let me explain what the MSNBC article is saying. There are people in the Army who have the power to test, integrate, and field Trophy. To do that, it takes time, lots of time, and the Army is slow. The article also does not mention whether or not the Israeli Ministry of Defense will let us buy the systems. We test foreign systems all the time, but that is the easy part, fielding in quantity is much harder. Regardless, there are many, many systems that could help our troops, and they all take time to get into the hands of the soldier. Trophy is only one of them. 16 months isn't a long time in government procurement.
This MSNBC article has simply latched onto the fact that there happens to be an FCS program to develop a Trophy-like system, and has correlated that this is the sole reason that Trophy is not fielded. I don't agree with their opinion-passed-on-as-fact. Some people at the Pentagon agree, and there may be some truth in that politics play a part. But there is ALOT of this story left untold, and I know how programs can get distorted when someone (such as a reporter) makes a judgement about the program without knowing the whole story. You could make this same correlation with a hundred different systems that seem promising on the surface but haven't been fielded. And FCS is HUGE, there is a "system" to do everything. It wouldn't be hard to find an FCS program that is tasked to develop something that has already been developed.
This MSNBC article has simply latched onto the fact that there happens to be an FCS program to develop a Trophy-like system, and has correlated that this is the sole reason that Trophy is not fielded. I don't agree with their opinion-passed-on-as-fact. Some people at the Pentagon agree, and there may be some truth in that politics play a part. But there is ALOT of this story left untold, and I know how programs can get distorted when someone (such as a reporter) makes a judgement about the program without knowing the whole story. You could make this same correlation with a hundred different systems that seem promising on the surface but haven't been fielded. And FCS is HUGE, there is a "system" to do everything. It wouldn't be hard to find an FCS program that is tasked to develop something that has already been developed.
So how many Trophy Systems can Rafael make in the next 3 years? How will they be installed on deployed vehicles in Iraq?
I recall Quick Kill being slated for testing in Iraq in the near future. Does anyone have recent news on this?
IMO Quick Kill is a superior system by design, but that is immaterial to the discussion.
Once again, I reiterate that this "story" is being cooked up just for political points among certain political persuasions. People always like to bash Rumsfeld for his "you go to war with the army you have comment." If the Pentagon was throwing hundreds of millions at the Trophy System back in the 90's, what political persuasion would be up in arms?
I recall Quick Kill being slated for testing in Iraq in the near future. Does anyone have recent news on this?
IMO Quick Kill is a superior system by design, but that is immaterial to the discussion.
Once again, I reiterate that this "story" is being cooked up just for political points among certain political persuasions. People always like to bash Rumsfeld for his "you go to war with the army you have comment." If the Pentagon was throwing hundreds of millions at the Trophy System back in the 90's, what political persuasion would be up in arms?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
