1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Army shuns system to combat RPGs

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by JamieinNH, Sep 5, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    WASHINGTON - Rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, are a favorite weapon of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are cheap, easy to use and deadly.

    RPGs have killed nearly 40 Americans in Afghanistan and more than 130 in Iraq, including 21-year-old Pvt. Dennis Miller.


    “They were in Ramadi, and his tank was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade,” says Miller’s mother, Kathy. “Little Denny never knew what hit him.”



    STORY LINK



    <SNIP>
    Trophy’s supporters inside the Pentagon are more blunt. As one senior official told NBC News, “This debate has nothing, zero, to do with capability or timeliness. It’s about money and politics. You’ve got a gigantic program [FCS] and contractors with intertwined interests. Trophy was one of the most successful systems we’ve tested, and yet the Army has ensured that it won’t be part of FCS and is now trying to prevent it from being included on the Strykers” that OFT planned to send to Iraq.
    </SNIP>


    This is an outrage! If they have something that will work, and help our our soliders, why wouldn't they put it in place! I am so dang tired of the "It's about money and politics" phrase I could scream.

    I plan on writing my cCongressman and anyone else that I think should know this. If we have something that we can get to save a soliders life, and the only reason we're not getting it is because it might affect someone's pocketbook, this is just plain dumb!

    Jamie
     
    #1 JamieinNH, Sep 5, 2006
  2. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Something is very, very, very fishy.

    . . . I have never seen a single military technology with a 100% success rate.

    . . . even bullets (and artillery rounds) fail every now and then.

    . . . sounds like someone has not completely tested this device.

    Maybe it will work.
     
    #2 El_Guero, Sep 5, 2006
  3. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    How about in Vietnam when our pilots couldn't shoot at a SAM site while under construction? They had to wait until it was operational and firing missles at them to take it out.
     
    #3 LeBuick, Sep 5, 2006
  4. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would tend to agree that it's probably not 100% accurate, but the article did say that Israel’s Armament Development Authority had done testing and it tested out at above 90%. I am not sure what the differences in the test where.

    Also, if the testing wasn't that accurate, wouldn't the Army just say they were not getting it because it's wasn't good enough?

    The Raytheon's version, due out in 2011 they said would only be a 3 on a scale of 9, whereas this one is a 7-8.

    I don't know, there might be a real reason it isn't in place, but from this article it doesn't seem to be a real reason.

    I think I will still write my congressman. I haven't bugged him much this year. :)

    Jamie
     
    #4 JamieinNH, Sep 5, 2006
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Something is wrong in the report . . .

    So, why did the journalist intentionally mislead?

    Don't know.


     
    #5 El_Guero, Sep 5, 2006
  6. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And people wonder why I'm seriously considering getting out of the military as quickly as I can....
     
    #6 Don, Sep 5, 2006
  7. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    We don't know that they did. It could have been the people supplying the information to the journalist..


    Jamie
     
    #7 JamieinNH, Sep 5, 2006
  8. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It isn't the journalist who has claimed 100%.

    As you pointed out before:
     
    #8 Daisy, Sep 6, 2006
  9. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daisy,

    Your great intelligence betrays you.

    I have fired expert on two machine guns & pistol, and I have qualified expert on two weapons (I used to wear those badges).

    I am a computer engineer. I trained as a petroleum engineer.

    I worked as an Intelligence Analyst.

    I have studied military history (weapons especially) for at least 30 years (I used to read a book a day as a kid).

    There is absolutely no reason to come out and say, this system is much better than a system that has not been tested. And there is no reason at all to imply that it will be 100% successful. That is all marketing hype - the M16 was a famous result of marketing hype.

    That was a misleading intent on the part of the journalist. (That was a breach of journalistic integrity.)

    Was the journalist ignorant? I do not know. Was the journalist genuinely trying to save lives? Maybe - again I do not know and the reporter did not have the integrity to tell us his (or her) intent.

    But, I do know the report was misleading. The report misleads the reader into thinking that we are losing lives without the device . . . That is 'possible' but, with the limited knowledge that we have that is not 'probable'.
     
    #9 El_Guero, Sep 6, 2006
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dinosaur delcares:

    The press has no more credibility than anyone else and probably less. We all post stories on bb but I always expect some portion if not all of them to turn out to be false or misleading.

    The press thinks its their job to watch the government. We need someone to watch them.:thumbsup:

    PS. I did not get that from Rush Limbaugh
     
    #10 Revmitchell, Sep 6, 2006
  11. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's good to see how a story develops over time and to use multiple sources.

    Which part of that story do you think is false or misleading? Apparently, the Army was going to use these and may still:

     
    #11 Daisy, Sep 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2006
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Daisy I actually was responding to comments made by a couple others. I dont know what is false in this story other wise I would have been specific.
     
    #12 Revmitchell, Sep 6, 2006
  13. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see, just a general-purpose "the press stinks" comment...
     
    #13 Daisy, Sep 6, 2006
  14. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a FOX news report about it on YouTube.

    VIDEO LINK

    From what this report said, they have tested it twice and in both cases it passed. The guy speaking didn't go into precentages.

    I still think, that if this works even on a above average percentage, I think we should deploy them and use them.

    If the only reason we are not using them is because of politics, then someone needs to be fired in my opinion.

    Only time will tell the real reason these are not currently being used...

    Jamie
     
    #14 JamieinNH, Sep 6, 2006
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Exactly! well let me rephrase. Just a general purpose "They aren't reliable" comment.
     
    #15 Revmitchell, Sep 6, 2006
  16. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    We do need someone to monitor the press . . .

     
    #16 El_Guero, Sep 6, 2006
  17. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jamie

    Give me a real source . . .

    So far you have given as your sources - youtube & the the greedy gun makers that will profit off of their weapons . . .

    I don't trust NATICK that much . . . And I certainly don't trust people trying to profiteer off of war . . .

    Having studied military equipment - I am amazed that a 'simple' device would claim a kill percentage much higher than phalanx . . .

    . . . . could they have stolen phalanx technology and made it cheaper and better? Maybe . . .

    But, not the 'probable' that your sources indicate . . .



     
    #17 El_Guero, Sep 6, 2006
  18. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this to be interpreted as this: Give you a source you like, that you know and trust and then you will believe something?

    I have given two, one to start the thread, a news story that can be found in a number of places on the web, and a video.

    The video was to only show the weapon we are talking about up close and how it works. This was reported by Fox News.

    You can choose to review the news stories and believe them or not. If you want more sources, go find them yourself.

    I can on the surface make my mind up with what I have read so far. I will be writing my Congressman, if you don't want to, or feel that this isn't worth it, then don't.

    Jamie
     
    #18 JamieinNH, Sep 6, 2006
  19. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did the Army favor Raytheon in anti-RPG bid?

    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.



    STORY LINK



    More to this story....


    Jamie
     
    #19 JamieinNH, Sep 6, 2006
  20. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jamie

    Give me a real source . . . in any language. What language would you like me to ask you in?

    A news reporter runing information provided by a military vendor is not a real source.

    I realize that you have absolutely no idea what it takes to target and defeat an incoming round.

    But, how does it activate? I would guess sound.

    How does it acquire?

    What is acquisition time?

    How does it track?

    How does it determine real from bogus targets?

    How many rpm(*) does it put out? Or is it using a laser? Other plasma device?

    For example - an rpg round has a maximum effective range of 300 yards & a time to target and it travels at more than 200 yards/sec . . . the average firing distance is around 80 yards. Therefore, the average time from launch to impact is significantly less than a second . . .

    Less than a second . . .

    I just don't think (and have not thought from the outset) that the article is realistic . . . I might be wrong . . . but, a second is a very short time in combat . . .

    Well if they do choose that system - pray that it is not running on Microsoft . . .




    (*) rounds per minute
     
    #20 El_Guero, Sep 6, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...