|
Washington, DC – Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie released the following statement concerning today’s subcommittee hearing regarding Army Force Protection issues.
“Today the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee continues its ongoing review of force protection issues and today will address vehicle armor, personnel armor, and active protection systems. Force protection is a top priority for this committee.
Nearly 108,000 Army active duty and reserve component personnel are operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. An additional 17,500 Army personnel are planned for deployment under Administration’s new plan.
“Regardless of one’s views on the war, with 70 percent of casualties resulting from Improvised Explosive Devices, vehicle and personnel armor are critically important. The military has introduced several iterations of vehicle and body armor to address the ever increasing threat.
“We understand that now all military and DOD civilians have been issued a complete set of body armor and no vehicle travels outside a secure area without some form of factory produced armor. A new program, called mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, composed of three different categories of vehicles, is the latest effort to protect our personnel.
“Just as the Humvee reached a point where additional armor protection is not possible because of gross weight limitations, personnel can only wear so much armor, beyond which their operational effectiveness is inhibited, actually increasing their risk of being injured. The challenge for the military is to seek a balance between increased vehicle and personnel armor protection and operational and personnel effectiveness.
Vehicle armor is defensive in nature and cannot totally protect against the evolving threats in theater. There are IEDs that have been encountered for which no reasonable level of armor will provide protection.
“Efforts to inhibit placement and promote detection of implaced IEDs have significantly increased, but have not kept pace with the threat. In addition, mistakes have been made in the past that delayed timely deployment of critical systems. Hopefully we can avoid these same mistakes in the future.
“We must be able to confidently say that we are doing everything possible to provide our warfighters the protection they need and deserve. However, no matter how much we spend on protective systems, the unfortunate reality of war is that U.S. forces will take casualties in combat.
The Active Protection System (APS) is designed to protect ground combat vehicles from an array of threats. The “Trophy” system as currently designed is for protecting the Merkava 4 tank against rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles.
Because of the short time lines required to counter most threats, there is no man-in-the loop with active protection systems. Once armed, until disarmed, they operate automatically to detect and fire at incoming rockets, missiles, and other threats. There are no operational U.S. active protection systems.
“The subcommittee addressed active protection systems last September, in part because of two NBC news segments on the issue. We determined that NBC in several instances misrepresented the facts, through implication or the misuse of quotes of others.
“In September, NBC used a quote to say that an active protection system called “Trophy” was operationally ready for deployment. We found that that was not the case. The first operational system will not be available until January next year at the earliest.
“In September, NBC stated that up to that date 132 lives had been lost in Iraq and implied that if Trophy had been employed on combat vehicles there, those lives might have been saved. In contrast, the Army has indicated that of the 132 lives lost, only 10 were in combat vehicles that could have been protected by an active protection system.
“Early this month, NBC stated that the Army’s own engineers, when evaluating active protection systems gave “Trophy” high marks, citing analysis they had acquired from the Army. Yet in reviewing that same Army analysis we note that those same Army engineers rated slat armor protection, the system currently deployed in Iraq, higher than Trophy.
“The obvious question is that if the existing combination of slat armor and reactive armor provides greater protection than Trophy, why should the Army go to the expense of adding Trophy to its tanks, Bradleys, or Strkyer vehicles? Yet, to our understanding there remains a CENTCOM validated urgent requirement for an active protection system.
“Other NBC claims regarding technical capabilities of the Trophy system being procured misrepresent its capabilities, but the details are classified. The objective of this discussion of active protection systems is to get the facts on the record so Congress can properly judge the decisions made by the U.S. Army.” |