What Military-Industrial Complex?

Lisa Myers (NBC News) conducted a special investigation into the Army's seemingly unwillingness to adopt an Israeli RPG defense system which has been successfully tested in field conditions. The "Trophy" system, produced by Rafael, was cited by the DOD's Office of Force Transformation as a really good deal. But Army officials would rather wait five years for Raytheon to complete the development and testing of its "Quick Kill" RPG defense solution, which will be part of the Future Combat Systems program.

In part two of her investigation (which aired last night), she documented how the Army bent over backwards to ensure that Raytheon remained in the competition - not that there was a competition. The Army was supposed to have a shoot-off between the two systems, but because the Raytheon system was still on the drawing board, the Army canceled the shoot-off and issued a single-source selection for the Raytheon solution. I'm shocked... shocked to discover that a military acquisition office might be biased towards one of the largest U.S. defense firms. Why, I've never heard of such outlandish behavior. I declare, I do believe I have the vapors...

First of all, this might have been a good news report - in APRIL, when this issue was made public (see this DefenseTech post). Or maybe Lisa might have done an internet search and found Noah's Popular Mechanics article in August. Both articles discuss the Army's concern that, yes, this seems to be a good idea, but there are some outstanding issues:

"It is not just about giving [soldiers] an APS system. How do the soldiers work with it? How does it tie into the network? How do you know when to turn it on? When not to turn it on?" said Future Combat Systems program manager Brig. Gen. Charles Cartwright. "We could put something over there . . . overnight but have I got the logistics to be able to support," the technology.

Some of you may be familiar with David Drake's Hammer's Slammers - he has written a number of scifi novels about this mercenary tank regiment, which has nuclear-powered tanks and armored cars that move around like hovercrafts. The vehicles also feature an anti-projectile defense system which, when activated, shoots out like a shotgun to defeat the incoming projectile (also good for shredding light infantry in the way). Issue is, it can be set for manual rather than automatic. These concept of operation issues need to be worked out (also see Murdoc's take on this issue).

I have to tell you, Colonel Don Kotchman showed that he had clearly taken the "how to deal with the media" class that every acquisition manager has to take. Get a load of this:

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.
----------------
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.

Priceless. Bravo, colonel, bravo. You survived the interview. Best that you can hope for. I have to say, this isn't news - that is to say, it's a shame that our acquisition process works this way, but it's normal procedure. Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex, we know he was right, but there's no way to fix the system short of finding a new set of honest congressmen and women, defense contractors who don't see dollar signs as the bottom line, and military acquisition officials who want to be promoted while in uniform and have a nice job when they retire.

UPDATE: Check out Paul's comments - interesting new details.

Comments

[Belphegor1527]

I have to admit I missed the earlier stories in April/August abuot this so the NBC story was the first I heard of it. While not news, it is frustrating to keep seeing this behavior by procurment officials.

Oh..and nice touch with the 'vapors' line. After I read that I couldn't help reading the rest of the post in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn.

"Son, ah say son. You just wouldn't understand the way we acquire new weapons systems down here. Why don't you make me a mint julip and look for that chickenhawk."

[Paul]

U.S. Army Defends Decision Not To Buy General Dynamics System

By Rebecca Christie
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)—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.

In April, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told reporters that the system needs to show "stability" before it is ready for the field. He said the Army isn’t against it, but also isn’t in a rush.

"How do we know this is the solution? Because the manufacturer says it is?"
Schoomaker said, when asked about Trophy at a Defense Writers Group breakfast.
"What we do want to do is make sure that what we put our precious dollars against work."

General Dynamics referred questions on the system to the Army.

[Thomas Jefferson]

I still saw no points as to how the Raytheon system is superior, and you excuse the blatant corruption by saying it can't be fixed. This is typical horse-hockey. You fix it by having zero tolerance for corruption, and heavy penalties for those that get caught. Maybe it's time for the country to start a 'war on corruption', since you hawk types are so fond on wars on verbs (unless what you are warring against is also paying for your illegal black-ops). Get real.

Update on NBC's side of the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16548471/