Hearts and Minds
September 15, 2006 6:44 AM Subscribe
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, which have killed nearly 40 Americans in Afghanistan and more than 130 in Iraq. 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.
posted by prostyle at 6:45 AM on September 15, 2006
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the US
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:49 AM on September 15, 2006
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the US
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:49 AM on September 15, 2006
well, At least we didnt outsource a 70 million dollar defense contract to non-Americans.
posted by mulligan at 6:52 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by mulligan at 6:52 AM on September 15, 2006
Well it is possible that the Raytheon system might work better then the Israeli system. Quite frankly I have my doubts about that, what happens if you have more then one rocket fired at you, for example?
$70 million isn't too much for these military projects, although I think one of our biggest problems is spending way too much money on crazy advanced weapons systems when insurgents use much cheaper stuff.
posted by delmoi at 7:12 AM on September 15, 2006
$70 million isn't too much for these military projects, although I think one of our biggest problems is spending way too much money on crazy advanced weapons systems when insurgents use much cheaper stuff.
posted by delmoi at 7:12 AM on September 15, 2006
It is sort of like the situation with body armor. Once the bureaucracy starts moving in one direction heaven help you if you try to turn it another way, even if that way is clearly better. A great example of this was Wolman rink in NYC. Years behind schedule and massively over budget, the Donald steps in, bypasses all the red tape and completes the project in months.
posted by caddis at 7:15 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by caddis at 7:15 AM on September 15, 2006
No way, Raytheon won a defense contract? That's outrageous!
posted by Khalad at 7:17 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by Khalad at 7:17 AM on September 15, 2006
Well it is possible that the Raytheon system might work better then the Israeli system
Officials also tell NBC News that according to the Pentagon’s own method of measuring a weapons system’s readiness, Trophy is “between a 7 and an 8” out of a possible score of 9. Raytheon’s system is said to be a “3.”posted by prostyle at 7:18 AM on September 15, 2006
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.
And this is the guy "who heads the Army’s effort to field an RPG defense system." Amazing. It's so fucking brazen to play with soldiers' lives like this, and yet there it is. The evidence that money is more important is pretty damn clear.
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.
If I were a soldier I'd be very, very, very pissed.
posted by mediareport at 7:21 AM on September 15, 2006
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.
And this is the guy "who heads the Army’s effort to field an RPG defense system." Amazing. It's so fucking brazen to play with soldiers' lives like this, and yet there it is. The evidence that money is more important is pretty damn clear.
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.
If I were a soldier I'd be very, very, very pissed.
posted by mediareport at 7:21 AM on September 15, 2006
Prostyle—is readiness == efficacy? Clearly, the Raytheon system isn't ready. It'll be a 3 until 2011.
posted by disillusioned at 7:21 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by disillusioned at 7:21 AM on September 15, 2006
Well it is possible that the Raytheon system might work better then the Israeli system.
delmoi, I really don't see how anyone could suggest that unless they hadn't read the first two links. In one test, the Israeli Trophy system went 30 for 30 in knocking out RPGs, mounted on a moving vehicle in near-battlefield conditions. It's being implemented now. Raytheon and the Army won't talk about their test results from non-moving vehicles, and their final product won't be ready for at least another five years.
This is a no-brainer, and one I'm not sure the Senate will be able to fix, since it's probably just as willing to sacrifice lives for Raytheon donations. Thanks for the post, prostyle.
posted by mediareport at 7:25 AM on September 15, 2006
delmoi, I really don't see how anyone could suggest that unless they hadn't read the first two links. In one test, the Israeli Trophy system went 30 for 30 in knocking out RPGs, mounted on a moving vehicle in near-battlefield conditions. It's being implemented now. Raytheon and the Army won't talk about their test results from non-moving vehicles, and their final product won't be ready for at least another five years.
This is a no-brainer, and one I'm not sure the Senate will be able to fix, since it's probably just as willing to sacrifice lives for Raytheon donations. Thanks for the post, prostyle.
posted by mediareport at 7:25 AM on September 15, 2006
The situation appears to be a bit more complex than most non-defense oriented publications imply. It is my understanding that the Trophy system is so large and heavy that it can only be mounted on APCs (Strykers etc) and tanks. And both of these platforms are receiving armor upgrades/modifications (slat armor and the TUSK upgrade respectively) that deal with the RPG threat without moving parts. The biggest RPG threat is to unarmored and lightly armored vehicles like humvees and such, which would be a more suitable platform for an active defense system similar to the iron fist system under development by IMI, another israeli company. Active defense is a really neat technology, but it's expensive (both in dollars and maintenance/downtime) and should only be used when more robust and well understood technologies are not applicable. Just my two cents.
posted by UESMark at 7:26 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by UESMark at 7:26 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
It's a defensive weapon for occupation troops. We still gonna be making stupid decisions that have our troops moving about among a hostile population in 2011?
Plus, trying to shoot down a warhead about the size of a grapefruit that has a flight time of a couple of seconds is completely absurd.
posted by wrapper at 7:31 AM on September 15, 2006
Plus, trying to shoot down a warhead about the size of a grapefruit that has a flight time of a couple of seconds is completely absurd.
posted by wrapper at 7:31 AM on September 15, 2006
well, At least we didnt outsource a 70 million dollar defense contract to non-Americans.
Once again nationalism rears its ugly head.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:37 AM on September 15, 2006
Once again nationalism rears its ugly head.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:37 AM on September 15, 2006
The substance of this post is fine, but it's quite hard to tell what the point is from the text, which I think is a big fault in a complicated, Newsfilter-type post. The thesis is that Raytheon may have been wrongly awarded the contract for its "Quick Kill" weapon, but all the post's text says is that Raytheon got the contract; it doesn't hint that the contract was got wrongly, and one has to follow the links to understand that's what the poster was getting at.
Merely indicating that Raytheon is "favored" in general doesn't come close to making the allegation the poster wanted to make, which is that it was improperly favored to build this particular weapon system. Likewise, merely mentioning that it beat out an Israeli weapon system that one Pentagon interest group liked doesn't make it clear that the poster means it wrongly beat out the Israeli system.
For all I know, every point the poster is trying to make here is true, but since the post gets most of its interest from those points, it would be better if it were clear what those points are.
[/pedant]
posted by grobstein at 7:42 AM on September 15, 2006
Merely indicating that Raytheon is "favored" in general doesn't come close to making the allegation the poster wanted to make, which is that it was improperly favored to build this particular weapon system. Likewise, merely mentioning that it beat out an Israeli weapon system that one Pentagon interest group liked doesn't make it clear that the poster means it wrongly beat out the Israeli system.
For all I know, every point the poster is trying to make here is true, but since the post gets most of its interest from those points, it would be better if it were clear what those points are.
[/pedant]
posted by grobstein at 7:42 AM on September 15, 2006
...one has to follow the links to understand that's what the poster was getting at.
God fucking forbid
posted by prostyle at 7:43 AM on September 15, 2006
God fucking forbid
posted by prostyle at 7:43 AM on September 15, 2006
I'm skeptical about this technology (both Trophy and Quick Kill). It just seems like such a difficult task.
I'd be curious to hear an explanation how it works.
I realize they claim lots of successful tests on Trophy, but do these simulate real world attacks that come without warning in a messy urban environment from any direction?
posted by justkevin at 7:46 AM on September 15, 2006
I'd be curious to hear an explanation how it works.
I realize they claim lots of successful tests on Trophy, but do these simulate real world attacks that come without warning in a messy urban environment from any direction?
posted by justkevin at 7:46 AM on September 15, 2006
This week, I'm planning to announce my system for protecting the troops from rpg attacks. The system currently rates at a 9.
I'm tentatively calling it, "Bring the troops home now, fuckers."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:56 AM on September 15, 2006
I'm tentatively calling it, "Bring the troops home now, fuckers."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:56 AM on September 15, 2006
I bet it's real fucking useful against molotov cocktails lobbed out of a window as you drive past.
posted by longbaugh at 8:10 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 8:10 AM on September 15, 2006
> This is a no-brainer, and one I'm not sure the Senate will be able to fix, since it's probably
> just as willing to sacrifice lives for Raytheon donations.
Back when metafilter's, uh, weapons-system experts discussed the Israeli technology six months ago you all decided it was 90% hype and 10% bullshit. However, if the Pentagon wants to develop its own home-grown system instead of buying Trophy, why that must be corruption and political kickbacks in action. File under "Why Metafilter == Looney Tunes," a very fat file indeed.
posted by jfuller at 8:10 AM on September 15, 2006
> just as willing to sacrifice lives for Raytheon donations.
Back when metafilter's, uh, weapons-system experts discussed the Israeli technology six months ago you all decided it was 90% hype and 10% bullshit. However, if the Pentagon wants to develop its own home-grown system instead of buying Trophy, why that must be corruption and political kickbacks in action. File under "Why Metafilter == Looney Tunes," a very fat file indeed.
posted by jfuller at 8:10 AM on September 15, 2006
After all is said and done, I bet that dangling a few sheets of $20 plywood on all sides of a troop carrier does the trick. They could even paint them as billboards and rake in the sponsors.
posted by Brian B. at 8:16 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by Brian B. at 8:16 AM on September 15, 2006
I realize they claim lots of successful tests on Trophy, but do these simulate real world attacks that come without warning in a messy urban environment from any direction?
Probably not. Mostly because of the "messy urban" part.
I think they detect the incoming warhead, and fire shot in that general direction - like Chenney, it won't actually have to aim precisely, so it isn't too hard to make a hit - this process wouldn't take long. In very tight confines, though, there are all kinds of problems.. For one, you don't even know the RPG is coming until it is very close. Also, there is probably a minimum range, below which the outgoing shot will not have spread enough to assure a hit. Finally, you have to wonder what damage the system does to soldiers and civilians nearby - which appears to be the reason you don't see reactive armour very much.
posted by Chuckles at 8:39 AM on September 15, 2006
Probably not. Mostly because of the "messy urban" part.
I think they detect the incoming warhead, and fire shot in that general direction - like Chenney, it won't actually have to aim precisely, so it isn't too hard to make a hit - this process wouldn't take long. In very tight confines, though, there are all kinds of problems.. For one, you don't even know the RPG is coming until it is very close. Also, there is probably a minimum range, below which the outgoing shot will not have spread enough to assure a hit. Finally, you have to wonder what damage the system does to soldiers and civilians nearby - which appears to be the reason you don't see reactive armour very much.
posted by Chuckles at 8:39 AM on September 15, 2006
justkevin:
I'd be curious to hear an explanation how it works.
The key ingredient in these systems are: 1. A very high frequency active sampling mobile radar unit - We are talking about a non-rotating, face plate capable of sampling thousands of time a second. 2. Potentially a sonic sensor setup not very different in its sampling abilities than the radar itself. 3. A very fast anti-projectile weapon that can be controlled to point in any direction in time t, where t < (safe perimeter distance / projectile speed) - For systems with lower values of t, more than one barrels can be mounted to complement each other, effectively bringing the acceptable value of t to t / n, where n is the number of anti-projectile weapons mounted and independently controlled for their cross section of perimeter.
Now comes the interesting part. You use the coordinates from the active grid radar (or sonic sensor grid) to determine the location of the projectile. With two of these samples, you can estimate the velocity vector of the projectile in 3D, with three samples, you get the accelration if there is any and so on. You keep sampling until your delta becomes zero and use partial differential equations to estimate the path of projectile on future values of t (extrapolated based on the data you just sampled). Now select a value of future t, which is with range (speed and accuracy) of one of your mounted anti-projectile weapons and aim and fire. By the time your weapons ammo reaches the target coordinates, it will be time td (time at destination) for which you performed your calculation and if your calculation is correct, so will the projectile - BANG. Obviously there are other factors at play here including weather patterm air quality, wind direction, vehicle speed (both target and attacker) and so on. But you are banking on the fact that unlike ICBM or cruise missiles, these low level projectiles don't have evasive controls built-in and are fire and forget in their nature. Hope that answers your question.
posted by trol at 8:50 AM on September 15, 2006 [2 favorites]
I'd be curious to hear an explanation how it works.
The key ingredient in these systems are: 1. A very high frequency active sampling mobile radar unit - We are talking about a non-rotating, face plate capable of sampling thousands of time a second. 2. Potentially a sonic sensor setup not very different in its sampling abilities than the radar itself. 3. A very fast anti-projectile weapon that can be controlled to point in any direction in time t, where t < (safe perimeter distance / projectile speed) - For systems with lower values of t, more than one barrels can be mounted to complement each other, effectively bringing the acceptable value of t to t / n, where n is the number of anti-projectile weapons mounted and independently controlled for their cross section of perimeter.
Now comes the interesting part. You use the coordinates from the active grid radar (or sonic sensor grid) to determine the location of the projectile. With two of these samples, you can estimate the velocity vector of the projectile in 3D, with three samples, you get the accelration if there is any and so on. You keep sampling until your delta becomes zero and use partial differential equations to estimate the path of projectile on future values of t (extrapolated based on the data you just sampled). Now select a value of future t, which is with range (speed and accuracy) of one of your mounted anti-projectile weapons and aim and fire. By the time your weapons ammo reaches the target coordinates, it will be time td (time at destination) for which you performed your calculation and if your calculation is correct, so will the projectile - BANG. Obviously there are other factors at play here including weather patterm air quality, wind direction, vehicle speed (both target and attacker) and so on. But you are banking on the fact that unlike ICBM or cruise missiles, these low level projectiles don't have evasive controls built-in and are fire and forget in their nature. Hope that answers your question.
posted by trol at 8:50 AM on September 15, 2006 [2 favorites]
Back when metafilter's, uh, weapons-system experts discussed the Israeli technology six months ago you all decided it was 90% hype and 10% bullshit.
Well, I just skimmed over that thread, and the conclusion seems to be something more like "it just might work".
Lots of talk about Patriots though.. Unlike the anti-ballistic missile problem, with these systems you know exactly what the warhead's target is, and the warhead is moving much more slowly.
posted by Chuckles at 8:59 AM on September 15, 2006
Well, I just skimmed over that thread, and the conclusion seems to be something more like "it just might work".
Lots of talk about Patriots though.. Unlike the anti-ballistic missile problem, with these systems you know exactly what the warhead's target is, and the warhead is moving much more slowly.
posted by Chuckles at 8:59 AM on September 15, 2006
jfuller; I just scanned the link from 6 months ago and there's little to no BS in there, other than Krrlson's usual dementia.
Specifically, your:
you all decided it was 90% hype and 10% bullshit
is completely unsupported since mefis were talking about Fox News calling this a "force field" when it was clearly a Phalanx-like system.
Looney Tunes," a very fat file indeed.
yeah, to True Believers like you reality must indeed seem Looney Tunes. I really can't understand you creeps.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:03 AM on September 15, 2006
Specifically, your:
you all decided it was 90% hype and 10% bullshit
is completely unsupported since mefis were talking about Fox News calling this a "force field" when it was clearly a Phalanx-like system.
Looney Tunes," a very fat file indeed.
yeah, to True Believers like you reality must indeed seem Looney Tunes. I really can't understand you creeps.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:03 AM on September 15, 2006
A very fast anti-projectile weapon that can be controlled to point in any direction ... t / n, where n is the number of anti-projectile weapons mounted
You might not have to aim at all.. It may be a question of selecting the shell that is already pointing in the appropriate direction. From the article Active Protective Systems: Impregnable Armor or Simply Enhanced Survivability?, here is a description of how the Russian Arena system works:
You might not have to aim at all.. It may be a question of selecting the shell that is already pointing in the appropriate direction. From the article Active Protective Systems: Impregnable Armor or Simply Enhanced Survivability?, here is a description of how the Russian Arena system works:
In combat mode of operation, the multidirectional radar mounted on the roof of the MBT constantly scans for approaching ATGMs and locates any target approaching within 50 meters of the tank within the designated speed band. The radar then operates in the target-tracking mode, locking onto the target at between 7.8 and 10.06 meters from the tank, and enters target data into the computer. After processing this data, the computer selects the countermunition (CM), one of the rounds of protective ammunition that are housed in 20 silos around the turret, and fires a small projectile (similar to a Claymore mine) into the path of the approaching ATGM. At the determined moment, the computer generates command signals via a converter unit to the selected ammunition. The ammunition detonates 1.3 to 3.9 meters from the target, generating a directed field of destructive elements, which destroy or disable the target to levels which are no longer dangerous. After .2-.4 seconds, the system is ready to repel the next target.posted by Chuckles at 9:16 AM on September 15, 2006
jfuller, with a few notable exceptions, most of MeFi is so far removed from the Benevolent Association of Them What Have Been Shot At that you'll have to make some allowances for the comments you read in threads like these.
That being said, I'm inclined to like Israeli stuff because it's usually pretty well thought out and practical -- the Uzi, Tavor and Merkava are great examples -- without a ton of gold-plating. But relying on high-tech active systems to save your @$$ from a third-world illiterate dirtbag with a weapon design that's nearly 40 years old but battle-tested and battle-proven on nearly every inhabited continent seems like a pretty iffy proposition to start with. Active systems (like Chobham armor, etc.) you gotta get out and reload, basically. So -- suppose you blow a couple plates or countering rounds, and the resupply is late or absent? What if the counterblast or defensive fire clobbers something/body you didn't want clobbered? That's not much of a concern with naval systems like Goalkeeper or CWIS, where ships are operating thousands of yards apart, but urban warfare is a lot more intimate.
RPGs have a nasty habit of announcing their presence by going "BOOM" practically before you've gotten around to diving for cover at the crescendoing "whhooooooooOOSH." I'd rather hang layers of heavy chain and loose plates off my APC (soaks up the rounds, dissipates the blast and shrapnel) than trust this stuff.
(/me hits knees, thanks Providence yet again that Fulda Gap didn't happen)
posted by pax digita at 9:17 AM on September 15, 2006
That being said, I'm inclined to like Israeli stuff because it's usually pretty well thought out and practical -- the Uzi, Tavor and Merkava are great examples -- without a ton of gold-plating. But relying on high-tech active systems to save your @$$ from a third-world illiterate dirtbag with a weapon design that's nearly 40 years old but battle-tested and battle-proven on nearly every inhabited continent seems like a pretty iffy proposition to start with. Active systems (like Chobham armor, etc.) you gotta get out and reload, basically. So -- suppose you blow a couple plates or countering rounds, and the resupply is late or absent? What if the counterblast or defensive fire clobbers something/body you didn't want clobbered? That's not much of a concern with naval systems like Goalkeeper or CWIS, where ships are operating thousands of yards apart, but urban warfare is a lot more intimate.
RPGs have a nasty habit of announcing their presence by going "BOOM" practically before you've gotten around to diving for cover at the crescendoing "whhooooooooOOSH." I'd rather hang layers of heavy chain and loose plates off my APC (soaks up the rounds, dissipates the blast and shrapnel) than trust this stuff.
(/me hits knees, thanks Providence yet again that Fulda Gap didn't happen)
posted by pax digita at 9:17 AM on September 15, 2006
jfuller, with a few notable exceptions, most of MeFi is so far removed from the Benevolent Association of Them What Have Been Shot At that you'll have to make some allowances for the comments you read in threads like these.
Yeah, but we play a lot of video games.
posted by Artw at 9:57 AM on September 15, 2006
Yeah, but we play a lot of video games.
posted by Artw at 9:57 AM on September 15, 2006
pax: While your point is certainly true for the most RPG-7 loads troops are currently facing it is becoming increasingly clear that in the long term sophisticated armor won't be enough. The capabilites evident in the RPG-29s that are starting to appear on battlefields in the middle east are the primary cause behind this escalation push by Israel and the US. Some of the, admittedly anecdotal, data i've seen about the recent Israel/hesbollah conflict stated that the merkava tanks, while well armored and sporting that funky steel chain and plumb bob turret ring armor were still quite severely damaged by RPG attacks, presumably by RPG-29s. If these new RPGs become as common as the older generation currently broadly available (which will almost certainly be the case within the next 10-15 years), militaries should probably start building active defense systems now in order to have any kind of effective armor force then. If I were in a tank facing down such threats I would certainly be more comfortable if we were fielding a second or third generation APS that our tactics were suited to rather than the first generation one which was held back until it was absolutely necessary.
posted by UESMark at 10:10 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by UESMark at 10:10 AM on September 15, 2006
jfuller, with a few notable exceptions, most of MeFi is so far removed from the Benevolent Association of Them What Have Been Shot At that you'll have to make some allowances for the comments you read in threads like these.
Yeah, but we play a lot of video games.
And those of us who do wear the uniform have never fired a weapon... ever. Funny how that works out.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 10:22 AM on September 15, 2006
Yeah, but we play a lot of video games.
And those of us who do wear the uniform have never fired a weapon... ever. Funny how that works out.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 10:22 AM on September 15, 2006
Brian B - they tried that on M4 Sherman tanks back in WWII* and surprisingly, it acheived sod all (it did make the crews feel slightly better though). There will always be a workaround for offence to defeat any defence you may have, reactive armour was all well and good, then came tandem warheads. And so on and so forth. It's a fine line between too little defence and loss of speed and manouevrability, especially in modern urban areas. The advantage will always be with the defenders in these instances.
*M4 crews attached all sorts of things from logs to spare track links which in some instances ended up slowing them down and making them even easier targets for the enemy to hit.
posted by longbaugh at 10:31 AM on September 15, 2006
*M4 crews attached all sorts of things from logs to spare track links which in some instances ended up slowing them down and making them even easier targets for the enemy to hit.
posted by longbaugh at 10:31 AM on September 15, 2006
Plus, trying to shoot down a warhead about the size of a grapefruit that has a flight time of a couple of seconds is completely absurd.
Save the Skeet!!
posted by Standeck at 11:04 AM on September 15, 2006
Save the Skeet!!
posted by Standeck at 11:04 AM on September 15, 2006
pax - Chobham isn't an active system - it's simply the name of a type of armour consisting of layers of composite materials. You don't "reload" Chobham so much as replace any part of the tank that has been damaged by an enemy round. It certainly did well up to maybe 5-10 years ago, but modern AT weapons using dual-warheads or top-attack modes can still defeat it. I would be willing to predict that the tank (as we know it now) will become obsolete on the sort of battlefields we expect to see over the next 15-20 years.
posted by longbaugh at 11:06 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 11:06 AM on September 15, 2006
Trophy promotional video (+ test range footage) here. I'm pretty sure it's quite possible to intercept a projectile the size of a grapefruit and a two-second flight time. Just don't expect it to be some enlisted standing there with a baseball bat.
posted by speedo at 11:11 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by speedo at 11:11 AM on September 15, 2006
Well, one thing's for sure: they should test these out on US crowds to avoid any embarrasing criticism using them overseas.
posted by papercake at 11:15 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by papercake at 11:15 AM on September 15, 2006
Yes, longbaugh, but I was not assuming high velocity and only assuming the ease, cost, lightweight and flexibility of plywood to deflect the mass downwards or cause it to explode on the ground. Throwing a mass of rocks seems to engage this system. My first instinct was to find a way to redirect the object or its blast back towards the sender. That will make them think twice.
posted by Brian B. at 11:21 AM on September 15, 2006
posted by Brian B. at 11:21 AM on September 15, 2006
So, Raytheon is going after Dungeons and Dragons and such?
Somewhat relevent reposted link
posted by Smedleyman at 11:47 AM on September 15, 2006
Somewhat relevent reposted link
posted by Smedleyman at 11:47 AM on September 15, 2006
Yeah sure, everyone recognizes that clay skeet targets and RPGs are exactly alike.
posted by wrapper at 1:10 PM on September 15, 2006
posted by wrapper at 1:10 PM on September 15, 2006
D'oh...yeah, Chobham is more properly reactive, innit?
I knew fsck-all about the RPG-29; the -7s are pretty nasty when barefoot grinning dirtbags are using them essentially as sniper weapons, let alone for their intended antiarmor mission -- kind of an improved Panzerfaust. And just seeing the shape of the warhead on the -29 was enough for me to know it's real bad news.
(I used to think heavy armor was pretty bitchin' until I read a lengthy but entertaining explanation of how ulmately vulnerable they can be. As if Kursk and ODS weren't clue enough.)
If the emphasis is shifting to active systems to counteract this kind of fire, than armor on land is going the way of naval offensive/defensive systems. After WW II, even without taking nukes into consideration, it became apparent that it's easier to build offensive weapon systems that can overcome armor than it is to sufficiently armor a platform to survive what an offensive system can do to it, so instead of armoring against the threat, you actively try to decoy it away or kill it on the way in. If AFVs go the way of the modern fighting ship, suddenly building more stuff like Stryker in lieu of bigger main-battle tanks begins to make more sense.
posted by pax digita at 1:13 PM on September 15, 2006
I knew fsck-all about the RPG-29; the -7s are pretty nasty when barefoot grinning dirtbags are using them essentially as sniper weapons, let alone for their intended antiarmor mission -- kind of an improved Panzerfaust. And just seeing the shape of the warhead on the -29 was enough for me to know it's real bad news.
(I used to think heavy armor was pretty bitchin' until I read a lengthy but entertaining explanation of how ulmately vulnerable they can be. As if Kursk and ODS weren't clue enough.)
If the emphasis is shifting to active systems to counteract this kind of fire, than armor on land is going the way of naval offensive/defensive systems. After WW II, even without taking nukes into consideration, it became apparent that it's easier to build offensive weapon systems that can overcome armor than it is to sufficiently armor a platform to survive what an offensive system can do to it, so instead of armoring against the threat, you actively try to decoy it away or kill it on the way in. If AFVs go the way of the modern fighting ship, suddenly building more stuff like Stryker in lieu of bigger main-battle tanks begins to make more sense.
posted by pax digita at 1:13 PM on September 15, 2006
So I guess my Giant Battle Robot idea is out, huh?
DAMN IT! Just when I got the prototype working... er... excuse me... [walks over to window]
"ZARDON! Put down the house! Put it DOWN! Good boy. Now go recharge your self."
posted by tkchrist at 7:11 PM on September 15, 2006
DAMN IT! Just when I got the prototype working... er... excuse me... [walks over to window]
"ZARDON! Put down the house! Put it DOWN! Good boy. Now go recharge your self."
posted by tkchrist at 7:11 PM on September 15, 2006
Why don't they just change the uniform to a red shirt and be done with it?
posted by dhartung at 9:00 PM on September 15, 2006
posted by dhartung at 9:00 PM on September 15, 2006
you all decided it was 90% hype and 10% bullshit
WTF? jfuller responded to my comment by mischaracterizing a thread in which I didn't even participate? Hoookay, that makes sense. Apparently it's too much work to distinguish between actual members when it gets in the way of your convenient "you all" mentality.
Must be nice to argue so easily without regard to reality.
posted by mediareport at 10:27 PM on September 15, 2006
WTF? jfuller responded to my comment by mischaracterizing a thread in which I didn't even participate? Hoookay, that makes sense. Apparently it's too much work to distinguish between actual members when it gets in the way of your convenient "you all" mentality.
Must be nice to argue so easily without regard to reality.
posted by mediareport at 10:27 PM on September 15, 2006
We in the defense industry have a saying:
Raython puts the 'R' in 'Quality'...
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:35 AM on September 19, 2006
Raython puts the 'R' in 'Quality'...
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:35 AM on September 19, 2006
« Older Stay out of trouble. | Breathing Earth Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments