ECW
01-28-2007, 07:11 AM
So much for the desire of our top brass and political leaders putting our troops in the field with the best armaments and protection available. Body armor was the first scandal. Then came un-armored Humvees. Now the Trophy anti-RPG weapon. I guess spending millions on a contractor to re-invent the wheel is more important than buying an already available product to protect our precious American lives.
Why am I not surprised? ~link~ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/)
WASHINGTON - In September, NBC News first reported on a fierce debate within the Pentagon over an Israeli-made system that shoots rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) out of the sky. The Army seems intent on killing the system, but officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense believe it can save American lives.
Over the last three years, U.S. commanders in Iraq have issued a series of urgent pleas for a system to counter RPGs — a favorite weapon of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation (OFT) scoured the world for a solution and thought it found one in "Trophy," which was developed over the last decade in Israel.
Trophy works by scanning all directions and automatically detecting when an RPG is launched. The system then fires an interceptor — traveling hundreds of miles a minute — that destroys the RPG safely away from the vehicle.
OFT subjected Trophy to 30 tests and found it is "more than 98 percent" effective at killing RPGs. Officials then made plans to battle-test the system on some Stryker fighting vehicles headed to Iraq this year.
But the U.S. Army blocked that testing. Why? Pentagon sources tell NBC News — and internal Army documents seem to confirm — that Army officials consider Trophy a threat to their crown jewel, the $160 billion Future Combat System (FCS). Under FCS, the Army is paying Raytheon Co. $70 million to build an RPG-defense system from scratch.
In an interview with NBC News on June 26, 2006, an Army official said Trophy simply is not ready.
"The Army is opposed to deploying a system before we assure that it's safe, effective, suitable and supportable," said Col. Donald Kotchman. "Trophy is not there yet."
In letters to Congress since our first reports, the Army says that the best proof Trophy is not ready is that the "Israeli Defense Forces have yet to integrate and field Trophy."
To check out the Army's claims, we went back to Israel. We found that the Israeli military has indeed begun to integrate and field Trophy on tanks, buying at least 100 systems.
Brig. Gen. Amir Nir leads that effort. We asked him about claims that Trophy has not been sufficiently tested and that it's not ready to be deployed.
"It's the most mature, and it can do the job," he said. "We cannot afford waiting for the next generation."
This fall, after our first reports aired, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson gave Congress a laundry list of reasons the U.S. Army opposes Trophy.
Can Trophy handle attacks from every direction?
"From the standpoint of providing 360-degree coverage, we have issues," Sorenson told the Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 21, 2006.
What does Nir say? Will Trophy be able to engage targets from all directions?
"Yeah, 360 degrees," he says.
Can Trophy reload automatically?
"From the standpoint of an autoloader that's not yet developed, we have issues," said Sorenson before Congress.
Sorenson suggested that in the absence of an autoloader, soldiers would have to climb out of the vehicle and manually reload the system, perhaps under hostile fire?
We went to Trophy's manufacturer, Rafael, to see if there is an autoloader.
Col. Didi Ben Yoash, a reservist in the Israeli Defense Forces who works for Rafael, showed us one.
"Absolutely, this is an autoloader," he said.
How does he respond to U.S. Army claims that Trophy doesn't have an autoloader?
"Well, this is an autoloader," he said.
Gen. Nir also confimed to NBC that "the full system provides you the ability to reload automatically."
What’s the risk to troops when Trophy intercepts an RPG?
After our first report on Sept. 5, 2006, the Army told Congress it has "serious concerns over soldier safety."
What is the Israeli army's view of how much additional risk there is to the troops?
"As far as we tested, it added at most 1 percent," says Nir. "Not a significant risk."
In fact, the Israelis argue that Trophy, while not perfect, will provide much-needed protection for troops and save lives — the same conclusion reached by Trophy's backers in the Pentagon. They argue that Trophy should be fielded as an interim solution in response to U.S. commanders requests for help against RPGs. These officials believe that the troops cannot afford to wait while the U.S. Army and Raytheon perfect a longer-term solution.
We wanted to ask the U.S. Army about all this. Sorensen first agreed to an interview, then canceled it. The Army also refused to answer 29 specific questions we submitted.
The Army did give us two statements, one saying, in part: "The U.S. Army is dedicated to ensuring our soldiers deploy with the best force protection capability" and is working on a system to counter RPGs.
When will that system, being built by Raytheon, be ready?
The Army previously told us it could get it to the troops in four years, by 2011, but now declines to say whether it still is on course to meet that deadline.
PART TWO
WASHINGTON - Earlier this year, the U.S. Army awarded one of its favored defense contractors, Raytheon, a $70 million contract to develop a new system to combat rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which have killed nearly 40 Americans in Afghanistan and more than 130 in Iraq.
The Army insists that Raytheon won the contract fair and square based on its “systems engineering expertise and the discipline which they used in analyzing requirements, threats and potential solutions.”
But an NBC News investigation of the contract selection process reveals that at almost every turn, Raytheon was given a significant competitive advantage over other defense contractors, including an Israeli firm whose system was extensively tested and found to be highly effective.
When contacted by NBC News about this matter, Raytheon said it was not authorized to speak about how its contract was awarded and instead referred all questions to the Army.
Raytheon’s contract is 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 the U.S. Government Accountability Office [link to PDF report] found are worrisome procurement practices that allow weapons manufacturers to effectively tell the Army which weapons to buy.
The testing
Last year, the Army planned to test competing RPG defense systems in what officials refer to as a "shoot-off rodeo."**At the time, Raytheon’s system was still on the drawing board, and the Army opted to cancel the test.
In a statement to NBC News, the Army explained that the cancellation was “primarily because of concerns related to cost, supportability, practicality and fairness.” But Pentagon officials involved in past shoot-offs say money should not have been a factor since defense contractors, not the Army, normally shoulder the cost of system vs. system competitions.
After canceling the shoot-off, the Army chose to conduct what it called a “traditional source selection.”**We asked Col. Donald Kotchman, who heads the Army’s effort to field an RPG defense system, about that process.
Lisa Myers: Was the Raytheon system tested by the Pentagon?
Col. Donald Kotchman: The Army did not specifically test the Raytheon system.
Instead, Raytheon tested its own system this February.
Myers: How well did the Raytheon system do in its own testing?
Kotchman: I don't have that information.
Myers: Were there any Pentagon officials present for the Raytheon testing?
Kotchman: I do not know.
Video obtained by NBC News shows that Raytheon’s system was not tested under the most trying of conditions.**It was mounted on a test stand, not on a moving vehicle.
By contrast, a different Pentagon division, the Office of Force Transformation (OFT) tested a competing Israeli system — called Trophy — and found it at least 98 percent effective against RPGs in near-battlefield conditions.
A number of senior Army officials were supposed to attend those March 2006 tests but canceled.
In a statement, the Army said it does “not know who was invited, who declined to attend, and why they did or did not attend the demo.”
But an e-mail obtained by NBC News provides some insight. In it, a senior Army official writes that the Army “just awarded a contract to Raytheon” and wanted to “focus all efforts toward supporting the fielding of the Raytheon ... solution.” Accordingly, the official went on to say, “I don’t want anyone to think I’m supporting [Trophy].”
Nevertheless, OFT officials were so impressed with Trophy’s performance that they decided to buy several systems — which cost $300,000-$400,000 each — for battlefield trials on Stryker armored vehicles in Iraq next year. That plan was eventually scuttled by the Army.
The selection team
In May, a technical team was chosen and given the task of evaluating competing RPG defense systems. But here again, Raytheon had a leg up.
Myers: Do you know how many of the 21-person technical team worked for Raytheon?
Kotchman: To the best of my knowledge, none.
Army documents obtained by NBC News, however, reveal that nine of the 21 technical experts — as well as all the administrative personnel — were from Raytheon. The team ultimately concluded that of the seven RPG defense systems examined, Raytheon’s was “the clear winner.”
Raytheon’s “Quick Kill” solution — which the Army concedes will not be fielded before 2011 at the earliest — won out over Trophy, the Israeli system championed by the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation.
Myers: It appears as though Raytheon was allowed to select itself.
Kotchman: I don’t know that to be a fact, and so I really can't comment on it.
The Army later told NBC News that, its own document notwithstanding, the technical team actually consisted of 30 people plus two administrative assistants and that a total of eight people were from Raytheon.
“That sure doesn't look like an objective panel to me,” says Phil Coyle, a former principal adviser to the secretary of defense on weapons testing and evaluation who is now with the Center for Defense Information. “It just doesn't pass the ho-ho test when you have that many people from one company on the selection panel and then that company is the one that's chosen.”
Myers: Pentagon officials we spoke to said that the Army, quote, cooked the books on this.
Kotchman: I don’t know the basis of their assertion that the books were cooked and so ... I can’t confirm that.
Recently, the Senate entered the fray and in what congressional officials say was a slap at the Army, ordered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to put together a new, independent evaluation of all RPG defense systems, foreign and domestic.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive ~LINK~ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14704366/)
Why am I not surprised? ~link~ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/)
WASHINGTON - In September, NBC News first reported on a fierce debate within the Pentagon over an Israeli-made system that shoots rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) out of the sky. The Army seems intent on killing the system, but officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense believe it can save American lives.
Over the last three years, U.S. commanders in Iraq have issued a series of urgent pleas for a system to counter RPGs — a favorite weapon of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation (OFT) scoured the world for a solution and thought it found one in "Trophy," which was developed over the last decade in Israel.
Trophy works by scanning all directions and automatically detecting when an RPG is launched. The system then fires an interceptor — traveling hundreds of miles a minute — that destroys the RPG safely away from the vehicle.
OFT subjected Trophy to 30 tests and found it is "more than 98 percent" effective at killing RPGs. Officials then made plans to battle-test the system on some Stryker fighting vehicles headed to Iraq this year.
But the U.S. Army blocked that testing. Why? Pentagon sources tell NBC News — and internal Army documents seem to confirm — that Army officials consider Trophy a threat to their crown jewel, the $160 billion Future Combat System (FCS). Under FCS, the Army is paying Raytheon Co. $70 million to build an RPG-defense system from scratch.
In an interview with NBC News on June 26, 2006, an Army official said Trophy simply is not ready.
"The Army is opposed to deploying a system before we assure that it's safe, effective, suitable and supportable," said Col. Donald Kotchman. "Trophy is not there yet."
In letters to Congress since our first reports, the Army says that the best proof Trophy is not ready is that the "Israeli Defense Forces have yet to integrate and field Trophy."
To check out the Army's claims, we went back to Israel. We found that the Israeli military has indeed begun to integrate and field Trophy on tanks, buying at least 100 systems.
Brig. Gen. Amir Nir leads that effort. We asked him about claims that Trophy has not been sufficiently tested and that it's not ready to be deployed.
"It's the most mature, and it can do the job," he said. "We cannot afford waiting for the next generation."
This fall, after our first reports aired, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson gave Congress a laundry list of reasons the U.S. Army opposes Trophy.
Can Trophy handle attacks from every direction?
"From the standpoint of providing 360-degree coverage, we have issues," Sorenson told the Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 21, 2006.
What does Nir say? Will Trophy be able to engage targets from all directions?
"Yeah, 360 degrees," he says.
Can Trophy reload automatically?
"From the standpoint of an autoloader that's not yet developed, we have issues," said Sorenson before Congress.
Sorenson suggested that in the absence of an autoloader, soldiers would have to climb out of the vehicle and manually reload the system, perhaps under hostile fire?
We went to Trophy's manufacturer, Rafael, to see if there is an autoloader.
Col. Didi Ben Yoash, a reservist in the Israeli Defense Forces who works for Rafael, showed us one.
"Absolutely, this is an autoloader," he said.
How does he respond to U.S. Army claims that Trophy doesn't have an autoloader?
"Well, this is an autoloader," he said.
Gen. Nir also confimed to NBC that "the full system provides you the ability to reload automatically."
What’s the risk to troops when Trophy intercepts an RPG?
After our first report on Sept. 5, 2006, the Army told Congress it has "serious concerns over soldier safety."
What is the Israeli army's view of how much additional risk there is to the troops?
"As far as we tested, it added at most 1 percent," says Nir. "Not a significant risk."
In fact, the Israelis argue that Trophy, while not perfect, will provide much-needed protection for troops and save lives — the same conclusion reached by Trophy's backers in the Pentagon. They argue that Trophy should be fielded as an interim solution in response to U.S. commanders requests for help against RPGs. These officials believe that the troops cannot afford to wait while the U.S. Army and Raytheon perfect a longer-term solution.
We wanted to ask the U.S. Army about all this. Sorensen first agreed to an interview, then canceled it. The Army also refused to answer 29 specific questions we submitted.
The Army did give us two statements, one saying, in part: "The U.S. Army is dedicated to ensuring our soldiers deploy with the best force protection capability" and is working on a system to counter RPGs.
When will that system, being built by Raytheon, be ready?
The Army previously told us it could get it to the troops in four years, by 2011, but now declines to say whether it still is on course to meet that deadline.
PART TWO
WASHINGTON - Earlier this year, the U.S. Army awarded one of its favored defense contractors, Raytheon, a $70 million contract to develop a new system to combat rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which have killed nearly 40 Americans in Afghanistan and more than 130 in Iraq.
The Army insists that Raytheon won the contract fair and square based on its “systems engineering expertise and the discipline which they used in analyzing requirements, threats and potential solutions.”
But an NBC News investigation of the contract selection process reveals that at almost every turn, Raytheon was given a significant competitive advantage over other defense contractors, including an Israeli firm whose system was extensively tested and found to be highly effective.
When contacted by NBC News about this matter, Raytheon said it was not authorized to speak about how its contract was awarded and instead referred all questions to the Army.
Raytheon’s contract is 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 the U.S. Government Accountability Office [link to PDF report] found are worrisome procurement practices that allow weapons manufacturers to effectively tell the Army which weapons to buy.
The testing
Last year, the Army planned to test competing RPG defense systems in what officials refer to as a "shoot-off rodeo."**At the time, Raytheon’s system was still on the drawing board, and the Army opted to cancel the test.
In a statement to NBC News, the Army explained that the cancellation was “primarily because of concerns related to cost, supportability, practicality and fairness.” But Pentagon officials involved in past shoot-offs say money should not have been a factor since defense contractors, not the Army, normally shoulder the cost of system vs. system competitions.
After canceling the shoot-off, the Army chose to conduct what it called a “traditional source selection.”**We asked Col. Donald Kotchman, who heads the Army’s effort to field an RPG defense system, about that process.
Lisa Myers: Was the Raytheon system tested by the Pentagon?
Col. Donald Kotchman: The Army did not specifically test the Raytheon system.
Instead, Raytheon tested its own system this February.
Myers: How well did the Raytheon system do in its own testing?
Kotchman: I don't have that information.
Myers: Were there any Pentagon officials present for the Raytheon testing?
Kotchman: I do not know.
Video obtained by NBC News shows that Raytheon’s system was not tested under the most trying of conditions.**It was mounted on a test stand, not on a moving vehicle.
By contrast, a different Pentagon division, the Office of Force Transformation (OFT) tested a competing Israeli system — called Trophy — and found it at least 98 percent effective against RPGs in near-battlefield conditions.
A number of senior Army officials were supposed to attend those March 2006 tests but canceled.
In a statement, the Army said it does “not know who was invited, who declined to attend, and why they did or did not attend the demo.”
But an e-mail obtained by NBC News provides some insight. In it, a senior Army official writes that the Army “just awarded a contract to Raytheon” and wanted to “focus all efforts toward supporting the fielding of the Raytheon ... solution.” Accordingly, the official went on to say, “I don’t want anyone to think I’m supporting [Trophy].”
Nevertheless, OFT officials were so impressed with Trophy’s performance that they decided to buy several systems — which cost $300,000-$400,000 each — for battlefield trials on Stryker armored vehicles in Iraq next year. That plan was eventually scuttled by the Army.
The selection team
In May, a technical team was chosen and given the task of evaluating competing RPG defense systems. But here again, Raytheon had a leg up.
Myers: Do you know how many of the 21-person technical team worked for Raytheon?
Kotchman: To the best of my knowledge, none.
Army documents obtained by NBC News, however, reveal that nine of the 21 technical experts — as well as all the administrative personnel — were from Raytheon. The team ultimately concluded that of the seven RPG defense systems examined, Raytheon’s was “the clear winner.”
Raytheon’s “Quick Kill” solution — which the Army concedes will not be fielded before 2011 at the earliest — won out over Trophy, the Israeli system championed by the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation.
Myers: It appears as though Raytheon was allowed to select itself.
Kotchman: I don’t know that to be a fact, and so I really can't comment on it.
The Army later told NBC News that, its own document notwithstanding, the technical team actually consisted of 30 people plus two administrative assistants and that a total of eight people were from Raytheon.
“That sure doesn't look like an objective panel to me,” says Phil Coyle, a former principal adviser to the secretary of defense on weapons testing and evaluation who is now with the Center for Defense Information. “It just doesn't pass the ho-ho test when you have that many people from one company on the selection panel and then that company is the one that's chosen.”
Myers: Pentagon officials we spoke to said that the Army, quote, cooked the books on this.
Kotchman: I don’t know the basis of their assertion that the books were cooked and so ... I can’t confirm that.
Recently, the Senate entered the fray and in what congressional officials say was a slap at the Army, ordered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to put together a new, independent evaluation of all RPG defense systems, foreign and domestic.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive ~LINK~ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14704366/)