Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1982

9

Research, Development, and Acquisition

In the 1970s, following the Vietnam War, the Army planned a modernization program that would increase the Army inventory by more than 500 new weapons and equipment systems. According to General Donald R. Keith, the commanding general of the Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, it would be the largest modernization program "in the history of the Army." During fiscal year 1982, this program was beginning to pay important dividends-thanks to budget increases in 1981 and 1982-as the M1 Abrams tank, the Black Hawk tactical helicopter, the new Stinger air defense weapon, and the Bradley fighting vehicle, along with other items, reached the field.

The purpose of this program, as explained by Lt. Gen. James H. Merryman, General Keith's successor as Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition, was to modernize an army that had fallen increasingly further behind the armies of the Warsaw Pact nations. This situation had developed in the 1970s during which the Soviet Union exceeded U.S. production outlays for weapons and equipment by about 75 percent and outspent the United States for research and development by more than 50 percent. There was, however, more to the modernization program than simply bringing the Army up to standards after a period of neglect; an army that is to maintain itself in the years ahead must press forward with a program of research and development today, if it is to field the weapons and equipment it will need tomorrow.

In planning for the conduct of future operations against numerically strong, well-equipped forces such as those of the Warsaw Pact nations, the Army in 1981 developed the concept of the AirLand Battle. Under this concept the Army described an extended battlefield in which there would be an integrated use of conventional, nuclear, chemical, and electronic means to attack an enemy "to the full depth of his formations." Basing its projections on an intelligence estimate of the nature of Warsaw Pact forces to the year 2000 and beyond, the Army sought to ascertain its weapons and equipment needs for the AirLand Battle 2000. The Army set out to meet these needs in its research and

[170]

development program for the next decade, building on the work already under way.

The Army's operational and technological projections were, of course, simply predictions and not revelations of things certain to come, but they were based on experience and on the Army's best estimates of what contemporary developments meant for the near future.

As Eric C. Ludrigsen noted in a recent issue of Army, a historically interesting and significant aspect of the modernization program is that it appeared at inception to be system oriented rather than manpower oriented. That is, it seemed to look more and more toward substituting machines for manpower, in contrast to past tradition in which the Army, composed largely of marching infantry, was clearly labor intensive. In the years ahead, it seemed likely that in the Army, as was always the case in the Navy and Air Force, machines would be paramount.

As might be expected, the Army's modernization program is enormously expensive and takes place during a period of several years in which the Army's share of the defense budget has been shrinking. When Congress passed the 1983 defense authorization in the summer of 1982, it cut the Army's procurement budget request by 4.35 percent. In spite of this, procurement funds for fiscal year 1983 increased over those of fiscal year 1982.

In common parlance, procurement is the step following research and development (R&D). Today's Army, however, thinks in terms of research, development, and acquisition, a term that encompasses the complex life cycle of Army materiel from conceptualization through validation, development, production, and deployment. Conceptualization grows out of the study of threat projections, technological forecasts, and determinations concerning potential equipment or materiel systems, including complex weapons, that would be useful to the Army under known or projected circumstances. In the validation phase, the Army verifies preliminary designs and engineering plans, resolves or minimizes identifiable logistical problems, and in general validates the concept for full-scale development. During the development phase the Army generates, engineers, fabricates, and tests an item, after which it decides whether or not to accept the item into the inventory. Finally, in the production and deployment phase, the Army trains the operational units to use the item, procures it, and then distributes it to the field. This phase is a long process of applied science, manufacturing, and distribution. At various steps in this process, several important official committees become involved.

[171]

The Defense Science Board (DSB), the senior advisory body in the Department of Defense, consists of thirty-three members, including the chairmen of the primary public advisory committees of the three military departments as ex officio members. The thirty members-at-large are appointed for four-year terms and are selected on the basis of their preeminence in the fields of science and engineering, including management and long-range planning. A group of senior consultants, also outstanding scientists and engineers, assists the board in its deliberations. Under the direction of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USDRE), the DSB forms various task forces composed of board members, senior consultants, and other experts to study questions raised by the Secretary of Defense, the Undersecretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When a study is completed, the task forces present a formal briefing to the board and to appropriate DOD officials. They also submit a written report to the USDRE for approval and forwarding to the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that contains findings, recommendations, and a suggested implementation plan. After final approval, the report is published and distributed to concerned government agencies and other organizations. During fiscal year 1982 approved recommendations focused on the responsiveness of universities to defense research needs, very high speed integrated circuits, forward area laser weapons, and structural hardening of the B-52.

At the Army level, the Army Science Board (ASB) advises the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff on research and development directions and programs, on system acquisition policies and procedures, and on other matters affected by science and engineering. During the past year, ad hoc subgroups and review panels checked on the status of the Deputy Secretary of Defense's Acquisition Improvement Program and worked on new ways to improve the Army's acquisition process. These groups also examined options for using the limited number of Roland fire units and missiles that will be delivered to the Army with the close-out of the U.S. Roland program, and assessed the potential of artificial intelligence and robotics technologies in meeting Army needs relative to battlefield technology, research and technology insertion, management of research and development personnel, and plant automation. They also focused on means to ensure the smooth operation and maintenance of new, more advanced sys-

[172]

tems in terms of personnel qualifications, training, hardware, operational burdens on weapon systems, and systematic changes pertinent to the overall process of research, development, and acquisition. The Army Science Board sponsored studies on terrorism, including the problems of hostages, terrorist arsenals, terrorist incidents, the plausibility of mass destruction terrorism, and the use of bacteriological and chemical warfare agents by terrorists. The board also examined past and present hypervelocity technology and special armor programs and investigated general principles dealing with the impact of complex battlefield software systems. Two summer studies were conducted in August 1982. The first took up the acquisition and retention of Army scientists and engineers, both military and civilian. The second reviewed the Army's Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army (RDT&EA), programs on chemical warfare and biological defense, including content, balance, funding, support facilities, and management.

The Advanced Concepts and Technology Committee (ACT), a high-level group of scientists, engineers, and professional Army officers representing ODCSRDA, ODCSOPS, ODCSPER, TRADOC, DARCOM, and the Army Research Institute, is responsible for evaluating unsolicited proposals received from private industry that have significant potential for the Army. During fiscal year 1982, ACT funded twenty-nine different projects conducted by firms under contracts signed with the Army's development commands for a total of $5.9 million. Areas under investigation included an advanced tunable laser, a rocket-assisted kinetic energy projectile, a synthetic aperture radar, elimination of tail rotor on helicopters, ceramic turbines, polymeric microelectronics, nitramine propellant, and a solid-state near millimeter wavelength source.

The Laser Weapons Technology program for fiscal year 1982 continued to emphasize early demonstration of laser weapon concepts and advancement of the high-energy laser technology base. Primary technology accomplishments were the initiation of ultraviolet preionization laser experiments, construction of a propagation cell for performing in-house experiments, assessment of in-band laser damage, continuation of prime power development at MICOM (U.S. Army Missile Command) in conjunction with MERADCOM (Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command) and ERADCOM (Electronics Research and Development Command), and the conduct of joint Army-Navy hot spot tracking experiments.

Two contractors, Hughes and TRW, continued with the com-

[173]

petitive preliminary design for the forward area laser weapon, demonstrator (FALW-D), but Congress cut the funding for the program, causing its suspension.

A contract was let to Westinghouse on 1 April 1982 for the design and fabrication of the Roadrunner, which will demonstrate the close combat laser assault weapon (CCLAW) concept. The preliminary design review was held in September 1982. On 29 July 1982 the House Armed Services Committee blocked a request to move CCLAW to a separate program and added the funds to the laser weapons technology program. The authorization bill of 8 September 1982 affirmed this action.

The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) carried out a successful program in the area of military engineering research and development, military hydrology, and civil works engineering research and development during fiscal year 1982. Among the more significant projects was the demonstration of a new antiarmor obstacle using a developmental blasting agent. It involved pumping a slurry explosive into buried pipe, detonating it, and creating a ditch. In the demonstration neither an armored personnel carrier nor an M48 tank could cross the blasted barrier. A microprocessor-based procedure to forecast tactical streamflow was developed and tested. In addition, two initiatives were begun under the Dredging Operations Technical Support Program-one would address the long-term impact of dredged material disposal, while the other would evaluate disposal alternatives and would document existing procedures for predicting the effects of contaminated dredged material on the environment.

WES's Aquatic Plant Research Program provides assistance to Corps of Engineer districts, to state and local agencies, and across U.S. borders to the governments of Panama and Canada. During fiscal year 1982, an evaluation was completed on the effectiveness of introducing three insects and a pathogen into Louisiana waterways to control the growth of the water hyacinth, which was clogging the state's rivers and lakes. The study showed that, since the project began in 1977, the proliferation of the water hyacinth had been checked and that the area of its infestation had been reduced from 1.75 million acres to 350,000 acres.

The Corps of Engineer's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) coordinated the SNOW-ONE-A field experiment, which was conducted at the Vermont Army National Guard's Ethan Allen Training Center in Jericho, Vermont, from 30 November 1981 through 23 February 1982. As with the previous year's SNOW-ONE experiment, SNOW-ONE-A had the

[174]

objective of addressing problems posed by the winter environment on the performance of electro-optical and millimeter-wave systems. Specific goals of the experiment, which were met successfully, were to expand the data base for electromagnetic energy propagation through falling and blowing snow that had been initiated during SNOW-ONE, document the influence of snow cover on look-down sensor performance, conduct a preliminary winter-battlefield dust and debris subtest, and carry out a helicopter-induced obscuration subtest.

Construction of CRREL's Frost Effects Research Facility moved forward during fiscal year 1982, and the structure was expected to be ready for use in the winter of 1984-1985. The 29,000-square-foot building will house twelve test basins, an instrumentation and operation room, a mechanical and electrical equipment room, and a storage and staging aisle. The facility will permit seasonal and perennial (permafrost) frozen-soil conditions to be created and maintained artificially, and will provide the capability to assess, under controlled conditions, the effect of winter conditions on the durability of engineering structures, such as foundations, pavements, and underground utility lines. The new facility will substantially improve the reliability of test data because research projects will no longer be dependent on the vagaries of weather; it will also increase research productivity since the structures under examination can be subjected to a number of winter test cycles each year.

The Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program gained increased significance in 1982 when the Reagan administration announced its strategic modernization plan on 2 October 1981. This plan would terminate multiple protective shelter (MPS) basing of the Air Force's MX intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM); direct immediate deployment of 100 MXs in U.S. Minuteman ICBM silos as a temporary means of improving strategic capability; and direct further research and development on BMD and two other potential basing options, one or more of which would be chosen in 1984 for increasing long-term survivability of the missile. The US. Congress moved up the decision date to July 1983, and then to December 1982.

The BMD program manager and deputy program manager relocated from Huntsville, Alabama, to the BMD Program Office in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the move was to improve efficiency in responding to increased management de-

[175]

mands from Washington. At the same time as the relocation, which occurred in September 1982, command of the organization's Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Command (BMDSCOM) in Huntsville, a dual function of the program manager since 1976, reverted to a separate position.

In 1982 the BMD organization was authorized 106 military and 523 civilian spaces. Funding obligations totaled $596,948,233 and included $125,473,224 for the Advanced Technology Program, $333,061,981 for the Systems Technology Program, and $138,413,028 for the Kwajalein Missile Range.

Responding to the President's strategic modernization decision, BMD management in 1982 reassessed and reoriented the Systems Technology and Advanced Technology programs. A balance was sought between two major objectives: first, the preservation of cost-effective defense options which could be developed and deployed rapidly to meet near-term objectives with low development risk; and second, the maturation of advanced technology systems concepts which could counter projected Soviet threat growth and still be cost effective.

Attention was focused on two major efforts within the Systems Technology Program: (1) the preprototype program in progress since 1979 to demonstrate technology associated with an endoatmospheric low-altitude defense (LOAD) system capable of defending land-based ICBMs deployed in MPS or fixed silos; and (2) the homing overlay experiment (HOE) concerning technology for a nonnuclear exoatmospheric interceptor. Work also continued on other aspects of the program: advanced systems analysis, systems definition studies, development of threat and weapon effects data, evaluation of BMD in relation to current proposals resulting from strategic arms limitation or reduction talks, and formulation of options for the second of the reviews required every five years on the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. The strategic evaluations supported systems definition studies and also provided responses to requests from the Army's Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Office of Director of Defense Program Analysis and Evaluation, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

Activity was stepped up for the LOAD effort, which was given the name Sentry in April 1982 and later altered to Sentry-D. The Sentry Project Office performed extensive analyses to determine BMD effectiveness in defense of the MX in various basing modes, including closely spaced basing (CSB). The office also participated in MX basing studies with the Air Force Ballistic Missile

[176]

Office-BMD Core Group and with the Air Force staff panels. On 14 June 1982, the Secretary of Defense issued formal directions reorienting the Sentry effort from support of the MPS-based MX to the MX in a CSB mode. Management then redirected development of major components, such as the interceptor, radar, and data processor, for the system to address specific issues peculiar to CSB. Testing progressed on the major components, most of which were based on technology proven in the Site Defense and other programs. The accelerated and restructured Sentry effort was designed to support the fiscal year 1983 decision called for in the President's plan regarding a U.S. strategic deployment option.

Development progressed rapidly on the vehicles for the scheduled HOE flight tests, which would decide technical issues associated with optical homing and nonnuclear kill capability in the exoatmosphere. Special emphasis at all management levels resolved problems encountered during 1981 in developing the long wavelength infrared homing sensor, and fabrication was completed on several sensors. Calibration of the flight-1 homing sensor was concluded in August and begun on the flight-2 sensor, which will also be used as a backup for flight 1. Structural elements were finished for some HOE flight vehicles. Systems tests were completed for the first HOE flight vehicle (FTV-01) and started on the second. Flight preparations began using FTV-01, and refinement of launch operational procedures and training of launch crews and support personnel proceeded. Following an in-process review to determine its readiness, the FTV-01 was shipped to the Kwajalein Missile Range.

In systems definition efforts to provide U.S. responses in the event of unconstrained growth of the Soviet threat, primary attention was given to pursuit of an endoatmospheric nonnuclear kill (ENNK) capability to replace or augment the nuclear interceptor in the Sentry system. Obvious advantages of an ENNK system include greater public acceptance, avoidance of nuclear release requirements, more sitting and handling flexibility, and the ability to be thoroughly tested. Art intensive study of the feasibility of such a system was conducted from 13 November 1981 to 8 January 1982, and the results were briefed to the Undersecretary of the Army and to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Interest in the project led to the establishment of an ENNK task force on 6 July 1982 to determine top-level system performance parameters, to develop ENNK system concepts, and to formulate specific technology requirements.

Also under consideration as a cost-effective option of the

[177]

BMD growth was a layered defense concept in which an exoatmospheric defense system such as HOE combined with an endoatmospheric underlay defense such as Sentry to provide a two-tiered defense for fixed-base ICBMs and other high-value targets. In the BMD study initiated in 1981 to define a layered defense system for the 1990s, three prime contractors submitted separate concepts for such a system. In March 1982, BMDSCOM extended the study of these proposals, which were (a) a concept for high-value target defense, (b) a concept for sea-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) defense, and (c) a concept for ICBM defense.

In June 1982, in response to an inquiry from OSD, the BMD program manager established the Spartan Defense System Task Force to determine the efficacy of the Spartan missile in defense of the MX ICBM deployed in a CSB mode. Using Spartan for this purpose was appealing since both the missile and its warhead had already been developed and thoroughly tested, and a number of both had been stockpiled when the Safeguard BMD system was deactivated. Using Spartan, however, required definition of a system to perform those functions previously done by other components of the Safeguard system. The task team defined such a system based on existing hardware, and it determined Spartan's effectiveness in defending the MX in a CSB mode against a number of plausible attack scenarios. Results were given to OSD in September 1982.

The Simple-Novel System Working Group was established in July 1982 to evaluate rapidly deployable concepts for defense of CSB. Analysis of two concepts, conventional guns and environmental dust, was completed before the end of the year.

In August 1982, the Systems Technology Project Office initiated phase II of the Airborne Optical Adjunct Study in which a versatile, multimission threat acquisition system would be defined and a development program planned for a tactical prototype demonstration.

In the Advanced Technology Program, conducted by the BMD Advanced Technology Center (BMDATC), management focused attention on efforts offering substantial potential for improving BMD capabilities. Major technology efforts included the ENNK Technology Program, the Designating Optical Tracker Program, the Forward Acquisition System Program, the Optical Aircraft Measurements Program, the Miniature Kill Vehicle Program, the Distributed Data Processing Program, and the Cobra Judy program.

Operating under a severely constrained budget, BMDATC

[178]

limited its ENNK efforts to establishing key technologies that were critical to the operation and effectiveness of the system. Concept definition studies determined an ENNK capability. Installation of radar was completed at the Kwajalein Missile Range for use in collecting ENNK data. By direction of the Undersecretary of the Army, BMDATC began planning for an expanded ENNK development program to provide a broad technology base from which lower-risk ENNK systems of the future could be constructed.

A successful flight of BMDATC's Designating Optical Tracker Program was concluded in August 1982. This flight, as well as previous ones, progressively demonstrated the capability of long-wavelength infrared sensors to perform more complex, generic BMD functions under realistic engagement geometry and environmental conditions. Additional flights are planned.

Significant progress was made in the Forward Acquisition System Program, designed to resolve critical system and technology issues associated with the BMD forward acquisition function through comprehensive ground testing. Critical design reviews were completed, and system, subsystem, and interface performance specifications were published. However, this program was terminated at the end of fiscal year 1982 to make funds available for a higher-priority program.

Several milestones were achieved in the Optical Aircraft Measurements Program in 1982. In the aircraft platform area, a Boeing. 707b aircraft was purchased from American Airlines through an Air Force contract and was delivered to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in March. In June 1982, the 60-percent design review of the aircraft hangar was conducted satisfactorily. Separate contracts were awarded for the focal plane array development and the sensor integration effort. The preliminary design review of the focal plane array was done in September 1982. In August 1982, the Army and the Air Force signed a memorandum of agreement outlining their respective responsibilities and roles in the program.

In the Miniature Kill Vehicle Program, BMDATC successfully tested lightweight motors and designed a more advanced optical sensor. Management identified the most expensive items in the technology areas in order to cut potential production costs.

Cobra Judy, a ship-borne S-band phased array signature instrumentation radar system, underwent rigorous testing and evaluation before becoming fully operational in 1982. The system's performance was outstanding. In fiscal year 1983, it will be transferred to the U.S. Air Force Eastern Space and Missile

[179]

Center. Specifications have been finished for adding a single-beam X-band radar to the system. Unlike the basic system which was jointly funded, the modification is to be completely funded by BMD, and then all funds for operating the modified system are to be provided by the Air Force.

A number of projects completed in 1982 improved Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) capabilities. A high-speed digital data transmission link set up between Lexington, Massachusetts, and the missile range provided almost immediate delivery of mission information to Lexington for data reduction operations. Crypto equipment, incorporated at the terminals of the link, ensured secure communications. A multistatic measurements system, developed under joint BMDATC and KMR sponsorship, improved calculation of the pierce point of a reentry vehicle as well as flight diagnostics. This system uses multiple remote sites for tristatic reception of TRADER L-band radar echoes as well as bistatic echoes of the Advanced Research Projects Agency's long-range tracking and instrumentation radar (ALTAIR) UHF signals for signature analysis and netted defense technology tests. Modifications to the ALTAIR made it a fully operational contributing sensor of the Air Force Detection and Tracking System. Also completed was installation of a millimeter-wave instrumentation radar. When this system, a BMDATC project begun in 1981, is fully calibrated, it will collect data on reentry targets and satellites.

In 1982, the missile range successfully completed development of the C-7A Terminal Area Support Aircraft and the Kwajalein-Broad Ocean Area Tugboat projects in support of MX testing. In engineering tests using two targets of opportunity, the aircraft and tugboat demonstrated terminal area scoring with the Sonobuoy Missile Impact Location System (SMILS), telemetry with a wide-angle luneberg lens, and optics with streak and motion picture cameras. A Department of Energy vessel was leased to reference the SMILS array geodetically. The availability of land reference in the Marshall Islands allows the MX impact area to be extremely accurate for reentry vehicle scores.

In 1982, negotiations regarding present and future use of the KMR continued between the U.S. and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), one of the self-governing entities which make up the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. On 30 May 1982, U.S. And RMI officials signed an agreement to end the 35-year U.S. trusteeship. When ratified by the United States and the Marshall Islands, this Compact of Free Association would recognize the islands' autonomy but would give the United States

[180]

extensive access to Kwajalein and other Marshall Islands over the next fifty years in exchange for $1.5 billion in economic aid and rent. An interim agreement provided continued U.S. access pending ratification of the compact. On 18 June 1982, the Kwajalein Atoll Corporation, an association of Kwajalein landowners, began an organized- occupation on two major KMR installations, primarily to protest the terms of the compact. Since the demonstration was illegal according to the interim agreement, the U.S. waited for RMI and the landowners to settle the matter themselves. However, when the issue remained unsettled, the United States began discussions with the RMI and the landowners on 2 September 1982 in an attempt to determine what issues needed to be resolved to end the demonstration. These discussions set the stage for further negotiations in Washington, DC, in October 1982.

During fiscal year 1982, the Army continued its participation in the joint Tactical Communications Program, known as TRITAC, and achieved another major milestone in the successful completion of the production decision process and contract award for the Family of Digital Group Multiplexer Program. The start of production for this major element of TRI-TAC, in conjunction with the ongoing Army manufacture of the AN/TYC-39 and AN/TTC-39 switches, will provide our tactical forces with secure, reliable transmission of tactical command and control data, voice, and message traffic communications. The Army also received and accepted its first production quantities of the C-6709 basic net radio interface device and successfully fielded the C-6709 in Europe. Progress continued on the development of other major elements of TRI-TAC. Specifically, the Army Communications Development Laboratories fabricated an improved version of the existing AN/TSC-58, now called the Improved Message Facility (IMF). The IMF was tested and received favorable reviews in a live-exercise scenario. The IMF will now be fielded in lieu of developing a longer and more expensive alternative, will result in savings of hundreds of millions of dollars, and will provide an earlier capability to our fighting forces. Other Army TRI-TAC programs, such as the Single Subscriber Terminal, will enter operational testing and will soon be ready for production.

In November 1981, Congress terminated development of the Standoff Target Acquisition System (SOTAS) because of its high

[181]

cost. Congress agreed, however, that a SOTAS-like capacity-the ability to see what an enemy or potential enemy was doing behind its borders or frontlines-was needed; it directed the Army to seek a less expensive system to provide this "see-deep" capability. The Army examined various alternatives to SOTAS, concluded that less costly alternatives were available, and designed a program to develop them. Meanwhile, the Air Force was pursuing a program of its own, Pave Mover, which would possess, among other features, radar-guided weapons delivery. On 19 May 1982, the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USDRE) directed the Army and Air Force development programs to merge in order to provide a basic radar that could be expanded to satisfy each service's wide-angle surveillance and weapons guidance requirements, thereby reducing the duplication that would be inevitable with two separate programs.

The resultant program, the joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS), was financed by funds programmed for the two parent programs-Battlefield Data Systems and Pave Mover. The Air Force appointed the program manager, and the Army named the deputy program manager. A Joint Program Office UPO), staffed with Army and Air Force personnel along with appropriate technicians and administrators from the civilian sector, was established at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts, with a subelement at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Since the JPO began work in June 1982, four radar contractors have been directed to examine the feasibility of designing a single radar to be carried on the TR-1 and OV-I D platforms (these studies were completed and reviewed by the JPO on 3 September 1982). Furthermore, the JPO has begun to prepare general specifications for the joint STARS radar and system; the Motorola ground station, designed in the SOTAS program and practically completed, has been evaluated for applicability as the joint STARS ground station; and preparation has started on the Program Management Plan, which would include acquisition strategy and concomitant cost and schedule estimates.

Tactical Satellite (TACSAT) Communications Terminals are being developed to support Army and Marine Corps mobile ground forces by providing reliable communications between widely dispersed and rapidly moving forces. Each system uses a communications satellite as a relay station between two terminals, thereby eliminating the need for a line of sight between the terminals. In the initial phase of the TACSATCOM program, two single-channel and one multichannel system will be fielded.

[182]

The single-channel systems will operate in the ultrahigh frequency (UHF) range, while the multichannel system will function in the super high frequency range. The single-channel Special Communications system (AN/MSC-64) is in full-scale production and will provide secure command and control communications from the National Command Authority to various special units worldwide. The single-channel manpack (AN/ PSC-3) will support ranger and special forces units. A production contract for the AN/PSC-3 has been awarded. The Multichannel Initial System (MCIS), or AN/TSC-85A and 93A, provides super high frequency communications down to brigade level. Low-rate multiplexers and antijam modules will be added to fielded systems following procurement in 1985. In the objective phase, one single-channel and one multichannel system will be fielded. The Single Channel Objective Tactical Terminal (SCOTT), currently in advanced development, is an extremely high frequency (EHF) system, and fielding depends on the availability of an EHF satellite. The Multichannel Objective System (MCOS), also an EHF system, is still in the concept validation stage.

Fiscal year 1982 began with the Single Channel Ground Airborne Radio Subsystem (SINCGARS) still in advanced development with three competitors: Rockwell-Collins, Cincinnati Electronics, and ITT. The Army dropped Rockwell-Collins after the Electromagnetic Environmental Test Facility, a subactivity of the Test and Evaluation Command, determined that the Army did not need the technology being developed in the Rockwell-Collins system. DARCOM and the Army staff investigated ways to increase the production rate anticipated for SINCGARS. Possible options ranged from dual-source producers for maximum rates starting in the first program year to accepting the single-source, slow rate of production previously approved. After four months of effort, the Army decided that the option it could afford for SINCGARS during this fiscal year was to increase the production rate, although not as significantly as desired, and to begin dual-source production later.

As a separate action, the Army decided in the summer of 1982 to delete the aircraft radio version from SINCGARS development. This action followed DARCOM's and TRADOC's proposal that the Army modify the existing AN/ARC-186 to be compatible with SINCGARS. DARCOM has assigned development of the modified AN/ARC-186 to the Aviation Research and Development Activity (AVRADA).

The Army, with Marine Corps participation, conducted a

[183]

successful operational test II on the Position Location Reporting System (PLRS) during the period October to December 1981. The Marine Corps performed additional testing for amphibious forces at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in January 1982. Despite the successful tests, Congress denied production funding for fiscal year 1982 because of unresolved development problems. The Army responded by restructuring the PLRS program to prepare for production in fiscal year 1983 and to correct deficiencies in reliability, availability, and maintainability noted during development and operational test II (DT-OT II). Additionally, in the spring of 1982, the Army deployed the system to the 9th Infantry Division, High Technology Test Bed, Fort Lewis, Washington, for innovative concept testing. A full-scale development contract for the PLRS test set was awarded in June 1982.

PLRS was presented to Marine and Army Systems Acquisition Review Councils III (MSARC, 30 July 1982; ASARC, 1 September 1982) for a production decision. The Army and Marine Corps endorsed the acquisition strategy and approved PLRS for production. At the ASARC III for PLRS, the acquisition strategy of the Army Data Distribution System (ADDS) was approved, subject to future milestone decision reviews. Based on PLRS guidance from the ASARC III, the production request for proposal (REP) was amended and forwarded to the contractor.

The development contract for phase one of the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) program-a Communications Control System (CCS) that will be used on the current field artillery's Tactical Fire Direction System (TACFIRE) and subsequently for AFATDS-was awarded to Singer Librascope in May 1982. The CSS will greatly upgrade the protocol interface for current digital communications with TACFIRE and will allow both TACFIRE and AFATDS to use communication technology from the emerging current generation.

Regarding TACFIRE, Litton received the final procurement contract for 139 sets. Fielding of the system continued on schedule with approximately 33 percent of the force being equipped with TACFIRE. Fielding should be complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 1986.

The third production contract for the ground laser locater designator (GLLD)-for 225 units with an option for 214 more in fiscal year 1983-was awarded in July 1982. Delivery of prior procurements continued, and sixteen GLLDs were fielded to the 82d Airborne Division. Hughes Aircraft Company received a contract for 125 laser designator range-finder modification kits for the fire support team vehicle (FISTV). Other provisions of the

[184]

contract provided for adapting the GLLD to use on the FISTV and for improving the GLLD design.

After completing force development test and experimentation (FDTE) at Fort Hood during the first quarter of fiscal year 1982, the mortar locating radar, AN/TPQ-36 (Firefinder), underwent configuration adjustments. Its conveyance was changed from the M561 Gama Goat to an M35 21/2-ton truck. The antenna transceiver group was changed from an M116 3/4-ton trailer to an M 103 11/2-ton trailer. The main reason for these modifications was the inability of the Gamma Goat and the 3/4-ton trailer to handle the weight of the AN/TPQ 36 and its antenna. The decision was also made to drop the 10KW turbine generator in favor of a more reliable power source. The interim replacement, the PU 304A generator, is used with the MPQ-4 radar. The new generator, which should be available by fiscal year 1985, will consist of two MEP 112A l0KW 400 Mz diesel generators mounted on the M 103 trailer. First article testing on the AN/TPQ-36 neared completion as the fiscal year ended, with only humidity testing left. Major problem areas were uncovered in low-temperature performance, electromagnetic interference, and water fording. In each case, corrective action was taken and each radar was screened to ensure full operability. These corrections resulted in improved reliability of the system's hardware and software. At year's end, the first set of radars that met the requirements of the tactical user was delivered to the field.

Regarding the other version of Firefinder, the artillery locating radar (AN/TPQ-37), six complete sets were shipped to U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR). Three USAREUR divisions underwent new equipment training, and one division was issued the item. Further issues were awaiting the receipt of spare parts. A grid deck failure during testing at Fort Hood led to a major design and reengineering effort for the antenna assembly and the subsequent replacement of all grid deck and associated hardware. To achieve greater durability, the antenna transporter has been changed from an M-832 dolly set to a flatbed trailer. Contractor testing of the trailer has been completed, and government testing has begun. Work continued on developing a low-temperature quality assurance procedure to increase the reliability of the AN/TPQ 37 in the field.

Regarding night vision devices, production continued on manportable common thermal night sights (MCTNS): AN/TAS-4 (TOW), AN/TAS-5 (Dragon), and AN/TAS-6 (night observation device, long range). Production contracts were awarded to Texas Instruments to add a missile-tracking capability to the AN/TAS-4,

[185]

using hardware developed under a Hughes Aircraft Company TOW 2 contract, and to convert the night sight to closed-cycle cooler operation. Program management responsibility for MCTNS shifted to the U.S. Army Missile Command. Production of second generation AN/PVS-5A night vision goggles continued in order to maintain a warm production base while third generation devices were phased into production. The third generation, aviator's night vision imaging system (ANVIS), AN/AVS-6, was type classified, and first production contracts were awarded. The first third-generation image intensifier system has been extremely well received by users from all services. Engineering development for the third-generation night vision goggles, AN/PVS-7, began, while advanced development continued on a thermal viewer (a common module-based periscope) for drivers of the M 1 tank and the M2 and M3 combat vehicles.

Full-scale development of the remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) continued in fiscal year 1982. The first series of RPV flight tests began on 16 July 1982 at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. While problems were encountered in two of the first three flights, these were corrected, and the last five flights of the eight that were conducted were 100-percent successful. Advanced development continued on a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) navigational system to enable the RPV to fly at night and under adverse weather conditions. Extended flight testing was conducted, with full-scale development of the FLIR system expected during fiscal year 1984. At the close of the fiscal year the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) validated the RPV requirement, completely funded RPV full-scale development, and approved funds for additional sets of hardware for early user tests and training and to help in the transition from research and development to production.

The Technical Control and Analysis Center-Division (TCACD) is designed to manage, analyze, and report signal intelligence (SIGINT) and electronic warfare (EW) information. It will provide the tactical commander with near real-time information on enemy movers, shooters, and electronic emitters. Each TCAC-D system contains three standard S-280 shelter modules mounted on five-ton trucks. In each of the modules are three analyst work stations equipped with military microprocessors and the software necessary to support the functions assigned to the particular work station, an ADP system which is linked with the three work stations, a magnetic tape unit, a line printer, and a moving head disk. This modular design enables continuity of operations during a geographical move, because each of the modules can func-

[186]

tion either independently or in conjunction with the others. Although the TCAGD system has experienced problems in software development, most have been resolved, and government acceptance is near. Field deployment of the system is scheduled early next year.

Combat Support

The ground emplaced mine scattering system (GEMSS), which is one of the family of scatterable mines (FASCAM), continued in development and procurement in fiscal year 1982. A competitive, single-year contract with fixed-price incentive was awarded to the AAI corporation for twenty-two dispensers.

First article tests on the extended trip lines for the M74 antipersonnel mine were successfully completed; first article tests were also successful on the electronics assembly for the M75 antitank mine. Fiscal year 1982 procurement contracts for the M74 mines were also awarded on a competitive basis. This resulted in Lockheed Corporation being selected as a third producer for scatterable mines in addition to Honeywell, Incorporated, and the Aerojet-General Corporation. The Army expects cost reduction benefits from this expansion of the mine production base.

Production deliveries of the M712 Copperhead cannon-launched guided projectile began in October 1981, but early start-up problems hampered production and the contractor did not reach the limited production rate of 200 rounds per month until May 1982. Performance was also a problem. During an OSD reliability demonstration, Copperhead achieved a reliability rate of only 67 percent, well below the 80-percent rate required by OSD for authorization to begin the economic production rate of 700 rounds per month. The Copperhead project manager took remedial action, and by November 1982 the projectile's reliability had increased to 84 percent. Production will continue through June 1984, with a three-year buy (fiscal years 1980-1982) of 7,695 rounds compared with the originally planned contract quantity of 9,169. The reduction reflected inaccurate estimates of actual production costs and changes that increased the projectile's cost. Production equipment will be stored.

During fiscal year 1982, the government of Japan signed a production contract for twenty-five Copperhead projectiles to be delivered for testing in June 1984. In addition, the United States and the United Kingdom began preparations for a 25-round Copperhead interoperability test scheduled for April 1983.

[187]

Several actions taken during the past year helped move the Army's tactical truck program forward. Fiscal year 1982 was the second year of five-year contracts on the AM General Corporation five-ton and Oshkosh Truck Corporation ten-ton truck programs. Initial production testing on both of these vehicles began during the year and will be completed in early fiscal year 1983 for the five-ton truck and later on for the ten-ton truck. Similar testing also began on the AM General M915A1 line haul tractor. Deliveries of Maschinen-fabrik Augsburg Nuernberg (MAN) ten-ton trucks to support Pershing II and the ground-launched cruise missile (GLOM) were also made.

On 13 July 1982, a competitive four-year contract was awarded to General Motors Corporation for 53,000(+) commercial utility and cargo vehicles (CUCV)-48,000 for the Army and the remainder for the Air Force and Marine Corps. The CUCV comes in three basic body styles: utility (resembling a Chevrolet Blazer), cargo (pickup truck), and ambulance. Vehicles from the CUCV family will replace all of the M880-series trucks (Dodge pickup) and those of the M151 1/4-ton truck fleet not replaced by the companion high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV). The CUCV program also follows congressional direction to commercialize 20 percent of the M151 1/4-ton jeep fleet.

Additionally, there were significant acquisition programs for a variety of trailers as well as a procurement of 134 lightweight trail bikes (motorcycles) for the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), the 82d Airborne Division, and the 6th Cavalry Brigade. The request for proposal (RFP) for the Swedish BV206 small unit support vehicle (SUSV) was released on 11 August 1982. The SUSV is a fully tracked, diesel powered, articulated vehicle (10,500 pounds curb weight, 3000 pounds payload) designed to carry platoon materiel and to evacuate wounded over all terrains in arctic and alpine locations.

The high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) program focused on development testing (DT) and operational testing (OT) of the contractor vehicles in fiscal year 1982. As a result of the development contracts signed in July of 1981 with AM General Corporation, General Dynamics Land Systems Division (formerly Chrysler Defense, Incorporated), and Teledyne Continental Motors, eleven prototype HMMWVs each were delivered in April 1982 for development testing, operational testing, and physical teardown and logistics demonstration.

Development testing was conducted by the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Mary-

[188]

land, and Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Operational testing was conducted at Hunter Liggett Military Reservation, California, by the Combat Developments Experimentation Command under the auspices of the Operational Test and Evaluation Agency. Marine Corps operational testing was conducted at Coronado, California. Other subtests were run at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan; Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts; and Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Operational testing was completed in September 1982, with development testing extending into October 1982.

A request for proposal for the HMMWV multiyear production contract was released to contractors on 22 September 1982. At the completion of the reporting period, all three HMMWV contractors remained in the program and are expected to compete for the HMMWV five-year production contract.

Plans to award an initial production contract for the M9 armored combat earthmover during the year were delayed because of a protest filed with the General Accounting Office (GAO) over the Army's intention to continue with the developing contractor (PACCAR) during initial production, and over the decision, following a comprehensive review of the M9 program, to reduce the planned initial production from eighty-seven in fiscal years 1982 and 1983 to fifteen in fiscal year 1982 and to move up multiyear procurement from fiscal year 1985 to 1984. GAO upheld the Army's position on obtaining an initial production contract, and negotiations with PACCAR were resumed late in the fiscal year. The follow-up multiyear procurement for about 1,300 units will be awarded through competition.

The Army and the Department of Energy (DOE) continued production of the M753 improved 8-inch nuclear projectile, but at a slightly slower rate as minor mechanical redesigns were made to correct deficiencies that surfaced during testing. And while the prohibition on deploying enhanced radiation warheads was in force throughout the year, equipping Army units for the M753 mission was completed in Europe and continued for active Army units in the continental United States. A key decision was made to equip all reserve units for the M753 mission. Procurement of the unit equipment needed by the reserve components to handle the M753 will begin in fiscal year 1984.

Development of the improved 155-mm. nuclear projectile (XM785) fell behind by eleven months because of congressional reductions in the fiscal year 1982 budget requests for DOE capital equipment and long lead-time procurement. The addition of eleven months to the development schedule had the positive

[189]

effect of eliminating the need to order hardware for development test II (DT II) and operational test II (OT II) before completing the engineering design phase, thereby significantly reducing the chance for program error. The extra time also allowed the Army to begin developing an integrated control unit which combined several functions and saved the government $30 million in procurement costs.

The Army decided to equip all reserve component units for the XM785 nuclear mission. The NATO FH70 cannon in-bore environments were characterized, and verification testing to qualify the 155-mm. nuclear projectile for NATO cannons was begun. Also, the program to demonstrate ballistic similitude with the M549 conventional projectile was started.

During fiscal year 1982, the 8-inch binary intermediate volatility agent (IVA) continued in advanced development, which was also begun on a medium altitude proximity (MAP) fuse to support the 8-inch binary program. Regarding the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) binary program, which also continued in advanced development, the Vought Corporation received a contract for the integration, design, development, and testing of the concept definition hardware. Furthermore, construction began in November 1981 on the 155-mm. projectile facility at Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Completion of the facility is scheduled for December 1984.

The Hellfire modular missile system (HMMS), an evolutionary system to accommodate a family of terminal homing seekers placed on a common airframe, was type classified as standard by the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) in November 1981. Although Hellfire is a major system, the Undersecretary of Defense waived review by the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC), and authority for a production decision was returned to the Army. The Vice Chief of Staff approved Hellfire for production, and contracts were awarded to Martin Marietta Corporation for Hellfire laser seekers and to Rockwell International Corporation for 680 Hellfire missiles and 135 launchers.

In tests of the Hellfire conducted during the year, three warheads functioned normally at impact, but one missile fell far short of the target, demonstrating that the fuse had remained in the safe condition as required by the actual trajectory. The structural feasibility of installing four Hellfire launchers and sixteen

[190]

missiles on the Black Hawk UH-60A helicopter was demonstrated by Sikorsky Aircraft with support from Rockwell International Corporation and the Hellfire/GLD Project Office. The feasibility of launching from the Black Hawk was successfully demonstrated at Redstone Arsenal. The Environmental Storage Program was initiated in August 1982 by delivering six missiles in containers and four launchers to both the Tropic and Arctic Test Centers. Two ballistic missiles were successfully launched to verify the redesigned latch on the lightweight launcher, which will be the production launcher.

Hellfire's engineering development program, which was concluded in August 1982, was an outstanding success from both a technical and cost standpoint. The HMMS met or exceeded every criteria specified in the materiel need document except weight (99.8 pounds actual weight was slightly more than the goal of 95 pounds. The project manager and TRADOC agreed to accept the higher weight

Several improvements to the Hellfire were begun during the year. These included work on a minimum smoke motor, a sealable container, an improved autopilot, a change in the design of the wire harnesses, and several design advancements in the laser seeker. The prime contractor started developing AN/USM-410 software and adapters for the depot-level repair of Hellfire launchers. In addition, efforts were made to improve the design of the test program sets developed for intermediate-level aviation maintenance of the launcher. The High Technology Test Bed at Fort Lewis, Washington, will test two prototype ground-launched Hellfire systems early in fiscal year 1983.

Substantial increases in estimated production costs for the Pershing II missile-program acquisition unit cost rose by 56.8 percent, and the unit cost for procurement in fiscal year 1982 increased by 29.5 percent-did not deter the Army from pushing forward. In June 1982 a contract was signed with Martin Marietta for the production in fiscal year 1982 of twenty-one missiles and associated ground support equipment with the option of purchasing an additional ninety-one missiles and ground support equipment in fiscal year 1983. On 22 July 1982, the first engineering development flight of the Pershing II failed seventeen seconds into the flight. The cause of the failure, a leak in the forward dome of the first-stage motor case, was a relatively minor problem that did not require redesigning the case; however, there was a two-month delay in the flight test program while corrections were made. By the end of fiscal year 1982, the engineering development program was about 75 percent

[191]

completed, and close to 95 percent of the qualification tests were done.

Pending availability of the Pershing II, work progressed on Pershing la modifications to extend the missile's operational life. Improvements to the erector-launcher, hoisting beams, and programmer test station and power station adaption kits, begun in July 1981, were completed during the past year. The increased reliability of the system seen in fiscal year 1981 continued, and the operational readiness rate of the Pershing la was the highest of any system managed by the U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM). Maintaining high readiness and reliability will require increased attention as the availability of spare parts becomes a critical problem during the remaining years of Pershing I deployment. The aging system is outdated from a technological standpoint, and many vendors no longer manufacture some parts used in the system's hardware.

Improvements to the basic tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided (TOW) system, called TOW 2, will enable this system to defeat anticipated threats from enemy armor and also preserve the Army's large investment in its primary infantry heavy assault weapon. Over 300,000 TOW missiles have been produced for the Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the armed services of forty foreign countries. The development of TOW 2 culminated in October 1981 with a decision to begin production of TOW 2 missiles and modification kits to convert basic TOW launchers to the TOW 2 configuration. Contracts were awarded in fiscal year 1982 to procure a total of 12,600 TOW 2 missiles and 2,852 launcher modification kits. These items are in production, and first deliveries are planned for early 1983. The overall TOW improvement program is managed by MICOM at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Advances in the warhead are directed by the Army Research and Development Command's Picatinny Arsenal. The prime contractor for TOW improvement is Hughes Aircraft Company, and the primary subcontractor is Texas Instruments, Incorporated.

The Army initiated two major product improvement programs (PIPS) to upgrade the nonnuclear and nuclear warheads for the Lance missile. The nonnuclear PIP is an exchange of the old submunition for a much improved one, while the nuclear PIP upgrades the technology of the warhead. Both improvements should be completed by the end of fiscal year 1983.

Approximately ten years of Dragon missile production at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, ended in November 1981. Before production was phased out, it was determined that the Dragon

[192]

met the criteria for the layaway mobilization program and plant equipment package assignment. All Dragon equipment was removed from the Redstone Arsenal assembly site and placed in a holding area. The Raytheon Company received a layaway contract in May 1982.

A relook study on the Infantry Manportable Assault Weapon System (IMAAWS), completed in April 1981, proved inconclusive and led to a delay in starting development with the reallocation of funds to other high-priority programs. A subsequent TRADOC study defined the infantry antiarmor requirements of a more comprehensive review entitled the Close Combat Light Mission Area Analysis (CCLMAA). The larger study, which was completed in March 1982, addressed light infantry scenarios and, through war-gaming and analysis, clearly supported the need for Rattler-the new name given to IMAAWS in November 1981-in dismounted infantry units. In June 1982 the Army leadership approved an RDTE program for Rattler missiles and launchers for light forces. On 1 September 1982 the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans formed a Rattler working group to expedite planning and to respond to concerns on the need, affordability, and technology of Rattler.

During fiscal year 1982, the third year of Patriot production, a contract was awarded for 9 fire units and 176 missiles, bringing the total to 19 fire units and 423 missiles under contract out of a program goal of 103 fire units and 6,217 missiles. The first production missiles and fire units from the fiscal year 1980 contract were accepted by the government and delivered to Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, for training and integration testing. The first Patriot battalion was activated at Fort Bliss, and all initial training of instructors and key personnel was completed in preparation for the battalion to reach its operational capability in the continental United States by the spring of 1983.

The third of four series of confirmation tests was completed, as directed by the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council to demonstrate that problems with Patriot software maturity, electronic countermeasures, and reliability had been corrected. The results were reviewed by OSD, and authorization was given for the Army to proceed with the fourth, and last, series of tests. Additionally, OSD delegated responsibility from the Patriot program's management review to the Army.

The United States continued to support a NATO acquisition study effort for Patriot. Germany, the Netherlands, and Greece have indicated an interest in pursuing bilateral programs with

[193]

the United States. The Netherlands and Greece submitted requests for price and availability, and discussions with Germany are under way. Under a foreign Military Sales case, the government of Japan began a study of Patriot as a replacement for their Nike Hercules and basic Hawk systems. The study is scheduled for completion in January 1983.

Following a decision to extend the life of the Hawk missile indefinitely, the Army formed an evolution task force to study technologies, concepts, and improvements for the support of U.S. air defense through the year 2000. In a related development the U.S. Army Missile Command prepared a study on the evolution of the Hawk missile. The report particularly emphasized changes that would reduce manpower requirements, improve strategic transportability, and increase firepower. The study would serve as the basis for future (phase IV) Hawk product improvement programs. During the past year, the Army has continued to concentrate on improving Hawk readiness, producing hardware for phase 11 improvements, and refining requirements and design concepts for phase 111. Fielding of phase I advancements was completed, and deliveries of phase II software were made.

Deliveries of Stinger missiles were delayed during the year because of problems with gripstock fabrication and the rejection of Lot 8 for two "eject only" malfunctions. An engineering change proposed by the contractor and approved by the Army resolved the gripstock problem, and Lot 8 was requalified. As a result, there were only short delays in Stinger deployment, which was continued to USAREUR and which was begun to the 82d Airborne Division. USAREUR units fired forty basic Stinger missiles during the first annual European service practice held at NAMFI Range on Crete. The gunners recorded thirty-seven successful firings during this training exercise for new equipment. The ten-round Stinger-Post contractor flight test program ended in May 1982. Negotiations with Germany continued on the memo of understanding for NATO coproduction of the Stinger. FMS sales of the Stinger to the Netherlands and Japan got under way during fiscal year 1982.

Because of budgetary constraints, the Army halted production of the Roland air defense missile after procuring 27 fire units and 595 missiles. Also, the fire unit will be mounted on a wheeled vehicle (M812 derivative) rather than a tracked vehicle. The New Mexico Army National Guard's 5th Battalion, 200th Air Defense Artillery, will be the only unit in the Army equipped with the Roland.

[194]

The division air defense (DIVAD) gun continued under research and development through fiscal year 1982. A two-month test begun in January 1982 verified that the system performed satisfactorily. The Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council met on 4 May 1982 and recommended that the DIVAD gun, which was renamed the Sgt. York division air defense gun, go into production. The recommendation was approved, and Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation received an initial production contract for fifty units. Following the award of the contract, several measures were taken to ensure that units delivered to the Army satisfied requirements completely. Durability and mobility testing was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The contractor facility worked on integrated logistical support, software maturation, and built-in test capabilities.

The M1 Abrams tank went into full-scale production in fiscal year 1982, and by the end of September a total of 612 tanks had been accepted. Fielding the M1 tank to Europe began in January 1982, and by the close of the fiscal year, four M1 Abrams tank battalion sets had been issued within USAREUR. Three of the Abrams-equipped battalions have completed all maintenance and crew transition training at the Vilseck-Grafenwoehr training area. The fourth battalion will complete its training in November 1982. The three M1 battalions that had finished transition training participated in the REFORGER exercise of 13-24 September 1982. The performance of the vehicles and units was superb. Training and fielding at FORSCOM was begun in August 1982. Three companies of the 2d Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, at Fort Hood, Texas, have their tanks; the fourth company is expected to have tanks in October 1982. Maintenance training was completed, and the battalion was well into crew transition training.

Work continued during the year -to correct two of the thirteen requirements for reliability, maintainability, availability, and durability that had not been met during DT-OT III testing. These deficiencies involved track life and power train durability. It had been determined that track life was limited by state-of-the art rubber technology, but investigations were under way to extend track life. To correct the power train durability performance which was 4 percent short of the requirement, a follow-up durability test was instituted to validate corrections made during production and to raise power train durability to acceptable levels.

[195]

First production delivery of the 120-mm. tank gun, which will replace the 105-mm. gun as the main armament of the Abrams tank, slipped from August 1984 to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1985 because of problems with the U.S.-produced 120-mm. ammunition. The cartridge cases posed special problems with regard to field serviceability and survivability if the ammunition compartments were penetrated. Tests for special shock and isolating techniques were under way at Aberdeen Proving Ground to resolve the problems.

Production of the M60A3 tank in fiscal year 1982 reached 342 vehicles, of which 122 were for the U.S. Army and 222 were for foreign customers. Of the U.S. Army's new production requirement of 1,666 M60A3s, a total of 1,542 had been produced by the end of the year.

Significant progress was made during the year in converting the M60A1 tanks in the Army's inventory to the M60A3 tank thermal-sight configuration-made in light of the Vice Chief of Staff's decision of October 1981 to have a two-tank fleet (M 1 s and M60A3s) by the 1990s. Anniston Army Depot made 286 conversions, and the Mainz Army Depot accomplished 161. Considerable cost savings, realized through a fiscal year 1982 multiyear contract on fire control solid-state computers and laser range-finders, were applied to the conversion program, thus enabling the M60 tank program manager to fund extra quantities of Al to A3 conversion kits and increase the annual out-year conversion rate from 360 to 460. This will allow Mainz to complete its part of the conversion program by fiscal year 1990, and Anniston by fiscal year 1994.

During fiscal year 1982, deployments of M60A3s to USAREUR continued from both Anniston and Mainz. CONUS deployments began this year, with the first increment of M60A3 tanks converted at Anniston being fielded to elements of the 24th Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Furthermore, in July 1982, a historic first was realized when eighteen M60A3 tanks were issued to the 48th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) of the Georgia National Guard. This event marked the first time in history that a National Guard unit received a new weapon system before active Army units did.

Work continued in fiscal year 1982 on M60-series tank product improvements, which were being developed on the basis of two objectives. The primary objective was to advance tank performance in the areas of firepower, mobility, reliability, availability, maintainability, and deployment. The secondary goal was to ensure commonality, or interoperability, with the M1 Abrams tank

[196]

in order to standardize logistic support and increase training efficiency. Design of adaption hardware for the M8 chemical alarm was finalized, testing of hardware developed in the Clean Air Program was initiated, and development of an automatic fire suppression system continued.

On their own initiative, some contractors developed plans to upgrade the M60 tank beyond the M60A3 tank's thermal-sight configuration. In the fall of 1981, the M60 program manager performed an in-depth study of several upgrade alternatives for the M60A3 tank. Primary areas under consideration were improved lethality, survivability, and fire control. Several options were addressed in each area. Also, the U.S. Marine Corps reviewed alternative concepts to upgrade its M60A1 tank fleet.

The FMC Corporation received a fiscal year 1982 procurement contract for 600 Bradley fighting vehicles. Delivery of 143 vehicles during the year represented the full purchase of 100 vehicles made in fiscal year 1980 as well as 43 of the 400 vehicles bought under fiscal year 1981 authorizations. The vehicles were furnished to service schools and to DARCOM for development of logistics support and training. The Bradley fighting vehicles completed first article testing in August 1982. Meanwhile, initial production testing of seven vehicles had begun at Aberdeen Proving Ground in June 1982 and was expected to continue until the following January. In addition to the vehicle program, the 25mm. gun and the 5.56 firing port weapon were in production.

The overhaul and modification of M113A1 armored personnel carriers of the Eighth Army and Western Command, in order to bring them to M113A2 status (improved cooling and suspension), was being accomplished at the rate of fourteen per month at the DAEWOO Industries plant, Chang Won, Korea. The limited buying of 180 new M113A2 carriers forced deliveries under contract to be stretched out in order to keep production lines open until fiscal year 1983 purchases were made. FMC Corporation invested its own resources and began building approximately five hundred M113A2 carriers in anticipation of foreign sales.

The Improved TOW Vehicle (ITV) is an M113A2 armored personnel carrier modified by the addition of a two-tube launcher head, mounted on a hydraulically driven cupola with a 360degree traverse capability. It provides armor protection for the crew and TOW systems components against small arms and indirect artillery fire. Fielding of the ITV to active Army and selected Army National Guard units continued throughout fiscal year 1982. A production contract for the kits needed to modify

[197]

the ITV for firing the TOW 2 missile was awarded in January 1982. Deliveries are scheduled to commence in November 1982, with initial installation on TRADOC training base vehicles in January 1983 and full implementation of the retrofit program scheduled to start with the upgrading of TOW system equipment beginning in July 1983.

While modernization of the howitzer system remained a relatively low priority during fiscal year 1982, some improvements were made. In the area of towed artillery, 204 M198 155-mm. howitzers were procured for units of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. With regard to self-propelled artillery, the Army neared completion of an investigation of possible improvement of the M 109 155-mm. howitzer that would maintain it as an effective system through the 1990s. And although upgrading the M 109 was preferred, the Army also considered developing a new system or adapting a foreign system to meet U.S. defense needs. Additionally, the Army was moving forward with the Howitzer Extended Life Program (HELP). Prototype HELP kits, which are designed to improve reliability, maintainability, survivability, and NBC protection, should be ready for testing in the next two years.

The field artillery ammunition support vehicle (FAASV) is an armored ammunition carrier built on a modified M 109 chassis. It presently incorporates a crane for loading ammunition onto the vehicle, an X-Y stacker for moving ammunition inside the vehicle, and a conveyor for moving ammunition from the FAASV into the howitzer. The conveyor can also be used to move ammunition into the vehicle. Development testing was begun on 16 November 1981 and was completed on 21 April 1982. Operational testing started on 11 January 1982 and ended on 21 April 1982. The development acceptance in-process review, at which a decision will be made on the FAASV type classification, will be held in December 1982. Contract award for initial production is planned for February 1983.

In response to a solicitation to thirty-nine firms on 29 June 1981 requesting offers on a proposed five-year procurement of a standardized 9-mm. personal defense weapon (PDW), four acceptable proposals and weapons samples were received from Beretta USA Corporation; Smith and Wesson, Inc.; Maremont Corporation; and Heckler and Koch, Inc. The sample handguns were subjected to extensive tests to demonstrate the characteristics of each weapon in relation to the requirements set forth in the solicitation. The results of this thorough evaluation and analysis showed that no samples met all essential requirements. Pri-

[198]

mary areas of failure were reliability and operation under adverse conditions (low temperature, mud, and sand). On 19 February 1982, the Army canceled the solicitation.

On 30 June 1982, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Army, as lead service, to revise the joint service operational requirement, acquisition plan, and test plan for the 9-mm. PDW. A contract award date was set for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1983 in order to meet an urgent Coast Guard requirement and to comply with the request of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee for an expedited procurement process. Progress in carrying out this instruction was brought to a halt by language in the fiscal year 1983 Authorized Bill and Conference Report prohibiting the Army from obligating or expending fiscal year 1983 funds for the evaluation or purchase of 9-mm. handguns. The bill further advised that this prohibition did not preclude the Army from purchasing 9-mm. handguns for the Department of Transportation law enforcement function.

Aviation

Following presentations to the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC III) on 9 November 1981, the AH-64 Apache advanced attack helicopter was type classified as standard. The Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC III) met on 26 March 1982 and approved production of the AH-64; the Secretary of Defense confirmed the decision on 15 April 1982. Production contracts were signed with Hughes Helicopters, General Electric, and Martin Marietta; deliveries were expected in 1984.

Throughout the year, tests conducted on various components of the AH-64 proved successful. Flight testing of the Apache's target acquisition designation system (TADS) at Yuma Proving Ground was also accomplished. This covered verification of day and night detection and recognition ranges, forward-looking infrared direct view optics and day television designations, automatic and manual tracking performance, and automatic bore sight verifications. The 500-hour endurance test of TADS and the pilots night vision sensor (PNVS) ended successfully on 12 December 1981. TADS-NVS tower testing began on 1 June 1982 and was not concluded by the close of fiscal year 1982.

A reassessment of the Cobra program, entitled Cobra 2000, led to the termination of engineering development for the forward-looking infrared augmented Cobra TOW sight (FACTS); in addition, improvements for the AH-1S Cobra/TOW were lim-

[199]

ited to night capability, a four-blade rotor system, and a mechanical environmental control unit, among others. The limitations were imposed by a series of general officer reviews by the Army staff, which acted upon a list of improvements recommended by TRADOC. The four-blade rotor system was later determined not to be affordable, and development was stopped. Work on other advancements continued. During fiscal year 1982, 129 AH-1Gs were converted to AH-1S fully modernized Cobras, and five new production AH-1Ss were received for the Army National Guard. Fielding of the fully modernized Cobra was completed in Korea and continued in Europe.

Full-scale development of the Scout helicopter under the Army helicopter improvement program (AHIP) began 1 November 1981, following successful negotiations with Bell Helicopter Textron over production option ceiling prices for sixty aircraft for fiscal years 1984 and 1985. Preliminary design review for the AHIP Scout was completed in March 1982, after milestone II reviews by ASARC and DSARC. The design phase of the program was essentially done by the end of the fiscal year, by which time Bell Helicopter Textron had finished modifying five OH-58A airframes to the AHIP Scout configuration. Limited engineering support testing on "brassboard" hardware was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the selected AHIP Scout design concepts.

In December 1981 the Secretary of Defense approved the establishment of the joint advanced vertical lift aircraft (JVX) program, with the Army as lead service. A joint technical assessment group met on 4 February 1982 to examine existing technology that might be applicable in developing the JVX. The group evaluated the high-speed conventional helicopter, the compound helicopter, the tilt rotor concept, and the lift-cruise fan concept. It concluded that requirements could be met with a common airframe. The joint technical assessment group worked in conjunction with the joint service operational requirements group, which had its first meeting on 8 February 1982. Its task was to document and provide a detailed definition of requirements for a common aircraft. The service secretaries signed a memorandum of understanding on 4 June 1982 which set program objectives for the JVX. An implementing memorandum of agreement was being staffed as the fiscal year ended.

A multiyear (fiscal years 1982-1984) procurement contract for 194. UH-60A Black Hawks was awarded to Sikorsky Aircraft on 12 April 1982. The $950-million contract saved the Army $81.1 million over the three-year period. The Army awarded a

[200]

triservice multiyear contract for fiscal years 1982-1983 to General Electric for T700-GE-700 engines to support procurement of Army, Navy, and Air Force Black Hawk aircraft and the Army's Apache helicopter for fiscal years 1982-1984. In May 1982 three Hellfire missiles were successfully fired from the Black Hawk during tests at Redstone Arsenal as part of a congressionally mandated feasibility demonstration. Later the ESSS (External Stores Support System) contract was modified to require the developer to perform, among other things, justification tests for increasing the Black Hawk's maximum operating gross weight from 20,250 pounds to 22,000 pounds.

The CH-47 modernization program continued on schedule as it entered its second year of production. Following the contract award to Boeing Vertol in December 1981, nineteen aircraft were received at the factory for modernization into the much-improved CH-47D configuration. The first production delivery was on 20 May 1982, eleven days ahead of contract schedule. The aircraft was sent to the Patuxent River Naval Air Test Center in Maryland for electromagnetic capability testing. The second production aircraft was delivered on 16 July 1982, one and a half months ahead of schedule. This aircraft underwent 400 hours of first article production testing at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Negotiations were under way at the end of the year for the third-year production contract and for potential three-year procurement (fiscal years 1983-1985). This multiyear procurement was not approved by the Congress.

Since fiscal year 1979, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States all members of the NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG) have been involved in negotiations which led to the approval of a memorandum of understanding dealing with the comparative testing and evaluation of anti-infrared smoke for the protection of combat vehicles. The six NATO countries successfully completed the summer phase of the tests at Bourges, France, in September 1982. Eight smokes were evaluated.

In another NAAG activity, the United States hosted for the first time the biannual meeting of NAAG's Panel X Interservice Group on Six Vehicles for Tactical Air Mobility. The discussions, which were held at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, focused on Soviet bloc capabilities, icing problems, and antiarmor helicopter systems. Fiscal year 1982 activities of

[201]

the Antitank Guided Weapons (ATGW) Working Group, composed of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, focused on code development of the next generation of ATGWs: the United States worked on the next manportable replacement, the Europeans on a new vehicle-mounted weapon. Although the memorandum of understanding authorizing cooperation in this area expired in March 1982, the working group met in June to discuss Rattler, formerly IMAAWS (Infantry Manportable Assault Weapon System); a completed feasibility study; and plans for the next phase of system development. At the September meeting of the Senior National Representatives held in Bonn, the ATGW Working Group advised that there was no basis on which a program package could be recommended at that time.

Language in the fiscal year 1982 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill left out the previous exception to the restriction on purchases of foreign-produced specialty metals-nickel, cobalt-base alloys, zirconium, zirconium-base alloys, titanium, and titanium-base alloys-given to buys that furthered NATO rationalization, standardization, and interoperability or that were made in compliance with offset agreements. This omission threatened the purchase of the improved 81-mm. mortar from Great Britain, the squad automatic weapon (SAW) from Belgium, and the Maschinenfabrik Augsberg Nuernberg (MAN) truck from the Federal Republic of Germany. Relief came with the passage of the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1983, Title XI of which restored the exemption.

Over the years, the Department of Defense has lent equipment to allied and other friendly countries for tests and evaluation under the heading of international research, development, and standardization. The Department of Defense also borrows equipment for the same purpose. Before 31 December 1981, the Army had authority to approve equipment loans. On that date, Congress amended the Arms Export Control Act of 1968 so that now the United States must lease equipment rather than loan it, under agreements such as the American, British, Canadian, Australian (ABCA) Program, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization memoranda of understanding, and data exchange agreements. On 28 May 1982, an executive order delegated leasing authority to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Leases for the purpose of cooperative research and development, electronic interface projects, and military exercises or for equipment past three-quarters of service life may be made at no cost to the lessor-tantamount to a loan. However, many requests for equip-

[202]

ment do not satisfy these criteria and require certain rental payments although they support standardization and interoperability. The International Office, ODCSRDA, has taken action to seek legislative relief allowing the loan or no-cost lease of materiel for standardization and interoperability purposes.

The obligation plan of the Army procurement appropriation for fiscal year 1982 amounted to $14.644 billion: $12.622 billion for direct Army procurement, and $2.022 billion for reimbursable customer sales. The plan covered all obligations in fiscal year 1982 from funds appropriated for fiscal years 1980-1982. Actual obligations incurred during the year exceeded the plan by $131 million ($139 million over the plan in direct procurement and $8 million under in reimbursable sales). Total obligations of $14.775 billion were made up of $12.760 billion in direct Army procurement and $2.015 billion in reimbursable customer sales. The lapse of funding for the expiring fiscal year 1980 program came to $189.3 million.

The Army procurement portion of the budget request for fiscal year 1983 amounted to $17.829 billion-$3.2 billion over the fiscal year 1982 appropriation. This increase would permit higher production for several weapon systems, including the Black Hawk utility helicopter, the advanced attack helicopter (AAH), the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), the Sgt. York division air defense (DIVAD) gun system, Pershing II, Patriot air defense missile system, and the precision guided and improved nuclear-conventional missile systems. Requests to the weapons and tracked combat vehicles (WTCV) appropriation included initiatives to improve combat power, particularly in support of NATO. Funding requests for the procurement of ammunition included substantial increases in the laser-guided Copperhead round and the initial procurement of binary chemical round components. The funding request for items under the "other procurement" appropriation included $2.339 billion for communications and electronic equipment, $1.256 billion for tactical and support vehicles, and $971.8 million for other support equipment. Final congressional action on the Army procurement appropriation for fiscal year 1983 had not been completed by the close of the reporting period (30 September 1982).

[203]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 24 May 2004