US Army defends decision not to buy General Dynamics system
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. Army on Wednesday defended its decision not to buy a General Dynamics Corp. (GD) system that defends tanks against rocket-propelled grenades by shooting back.
The Army has faced periodic criticism this year for its decision not to buy the Trophy defense system and rush it to Iraq. General Dynamics makes Trophy in partnership with Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd., which is backed by Israel's defense ministry.
Army officials say tests haven't proven a need for the system. But the service continues to face criticism that it is overlooking a potentially life-saving technology.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote Army Secretary Francis Harvey on Wednesday to ask why the system isn't in use, after Trophy made the NBC News. Maine is home to two General Dynamics sites: a shipyard in Bath and a .50 caliber machine gun factory in Saco.
But the Army insists the system isn't a good fit. When asked about the system Wednesday, Army spokesman Lt. Col. William Wiggins said the service already has measures in place to protect combat vehicles from RPG attacks. He said Defense Department tests of the Trophy system didn't warrant a rush to send it to Iraq.
"The Army will take all prudent measures possible to protect its soldiers," Wiggins said. The tests "did not provide the kind of results that would say we've got to revamp our whole testing apparatus or infrastructure."
Right now, the Army is using slat armor to defend its combat vehicles from RPG hits. This armor is essentially a cage that absorbs a blast several feet away from troops inside.
In contrast, Trophy is an "active protection" system that shoots back at incoming grenades so they will explode at a distance. Raytheon Co. (RTN) is building a similar system, which beat out Trophy for a role in the Army's $165 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program.
These types of systems have been shown to work in tests. But the Army has not yet figured out how it will use them.
For instance, the new systems raise big questions about collateral damage if the system misfired, or created a deadlier explosion than the RPG would have caused on its own. Also, the Army will need to design a supply chain and maintenance plan by the time Future Combat Systems reaches soldiers in the 2010s.
Read the rest at Market Watch
The Army has faced periodic criticism this year for its decision not to buy the Trophy defense system and rush it to Iraq. General Dynamics makes Trophy in partnership with Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd., which is backed by Israel's defense ministry.
Army officials say tests haven't proven a need for the system. But the service continues to face criticism that it is overlooking a potentially life-saving technology.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote Army Secretary Francis Harvey on Wednesday to ask why the system isn't in use, after Trophy made the NBC News. Maine is home to two General Dynamics sites: a shipyard in Bath and a .50 caliber machine gun factory in Saco.
But the Army insists the system isn't a good fit. When asked about the system Wednesday, Army spokesman Lt. Col. William Wiggins said the service already has measures in place to protect combat vehicles from RPG attacks. He said Defense Department tests of the Trophy system didn't warrant a rush to send it to Iraq.
"The Army will take all prudent measures possible to protect its soldiers," Wiggins said. The tests "did not provide the kind of results that would say we've got to revamp our whole testing apparatus or infrastructure."
Right now, the Army is using slat armor to defend its combat vehicles from RPG hits. This armor is essentially a cage that absorbs a blast several feet away from troops inside.
In contrast, Trophy is an "active protection" system that shoots back at incoming grenades so they will explode at a distance. Raytheon Co. (RTN) is building a similar system, which beat out Trophy for a role in the Army's $165 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program.
These types of systems have been shown to work in tests. But the Army has not yet figured out how it will use them.
For instance, the new systems raise big questions about collateral damage if the system misfired, or created a deadlier explosion than the RPG would have caused on its own. Also, the Army will need to design a supply chain and maintenance plan by the time Future Combat Systems reaches soldiers in the 2010s.
Read the rest at Market Watch
posted by iraqnam at 9:06 PM
<< Home