Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1978


Research, Development, and Acquisition

For many years the Army has attempted to keep pace with the expanding military capacity of the Warsaw Pact forces, especially the Soviet Union. Science and technology are key factors in the struggle. As in previous years, the fiscal year 1978 budget sought to achieve the best military capabilities possible within a limited-growth defense budget.

Budget, Management, and Acquisition

The first research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) program approved for fiscal year 1978 was based on the President's budget, and included constraints placed on the Army by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The Under Secretary again identified certain parts of the program as areas of special interest, and directed that no funds be diverted from them without prior approval from his office. These areas were: all 6.1 and 6.2 programs, ballistic missile defense advanced technology, ballistic missile systems technology, conventional airfield attack missiles, automatic data processing equipment developments, night vision advanced development, electronic warfare vulnerability/susceptibility, advanced electronic device technology, joint compatibility and interoperability, evaluation of foreign components, NAVSTAR global positioning systems user equipment, and Army/Navy area surface-to-air missile technology.

Department of Defense deferrals were $147 million. Army deferrals based on total risk-cost estimates, memoranda of understanding, and triservice agreements were $87 million. Some significant deferred Defense and Army programs were OSD-ballistic missile defense advanced technology, ballistic missile defense systems technology, night vision advanced development, tactical electronic warfare, the single channel ground/airborne radio subsystem (SINCGARS), and remotely piloted vehicles; Army-congressionally imposed personnel space reductions, tank gun cooperative development, and the NAVSTAR global positioning system.

The Department of the Army RDTE budget approved for fiscal year 1978 was $2,418.3 million. Congress passed the Defense Appropriations Act reducing the Army's RDTE request of $2,625.7 million by $197.8 million. Ten million dollars was ex-


pected back from RDTE surcharges on foreign military sales. Congress reduced the RDTE technology base by $23.3 million. Other reductions included $9.8 million for tank gun cooperative development, $10.6 million for tactical electronic warfare equipment, $18.3 million for the interim scout helicopter, and $10.0 million for engineering development automatic test equipment. In addition, $9.6 million was transferred to operation and maintenance for a congressionally imposed space reduction.

The Army's fiscal year 1979 RDTE budget request for $2,787 million was submitted to the budget review committee in August 1977. The fiscal year 1979 budget for $2,741 billion was presented to Congress in January 1978. It incorporated the decisions of a review by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense. The fiscal year 1979 Defense Appropriation Act, which included $2,638.9 million for RDTE, was not passed until October 1978 because President Carter vetoed it.

The Army followed zero base budgeting concepts in putting together its RDTE budget. The Office of the Secretary of Defense expanded the three funding levels of minimum, basic, and enhanced into seven bands, providing greater visibility to RDTE programs. The Army continued using total risk assessing cost estimates to control expenditures for major materiel systems. Deferrals amounting to $31.6 million in eleven systems were identified in fiscal year 1978, and deferrals in nine systems of $35 million were identified for fiscal year 1979.

There are five categories of Army procurement appropriations: aircraft, missile, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, and other. The fiscal year 1979 Army procurement budget submitted by the President on 23 January 1978 had an obligational authority request of $6.637 billion. The two authorization committees decreased it by $189 million. Congress further reduced it to $6.128 billion, or $509 million less than requested. All the procurement categories were affected.

The fiscal year 1978 Army procurement appropriations obligation plan was $6.964 billion. Of this amount, $4.986 billion was for direct Army procurement, and $1.978 billion was for reimbursables. The plan had three major segments: U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command ($6.171 billion), Headquarters, Department of the Army adjustments ($.615 billion), and other major commands ($.178 billion). Actual obligations against the fiscal year 1978 plan were $6.653 billion; $5.119 billion direct, and $1.534 billion reimbursable.


The lapse for expiring fiscal year 1976/7T appropriations is estimated at $240 million; $88 million in direct procurement reserved for contingent liability, and $152 million in reimbursables from reduced orders and generated augmentation and modernization reimbursables.

The Army Science and Technology Objectives Guide was published and distributed in May 1978. TRADOC again provided the most input, in coordination with the Requirements Directorate of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. The guide emphasized specific Army user needs and that research and development efforts were directed toward them. It stated that approximately 90 percent of Army science and technology research effort in 1978 was devoted to identified requirements. Other work was in long-range technological opportunities.

In March 1978 the Research, Development and Acquisition Committee held a review for program objectives memorandum 80-84 to resolve issues in 6.1 research and 6.2 exploratory development program funding categories. Technology base funding profiles and single project funding/single program element funding reports were prepared. The Research, Development and Acquisition Committee met on 31 July 1978 to allocate fiscal year 1980 RDTE resources and balance them against Army needs. The committee's conclusions and recommendations were accepted for the technology base.

The Army's advanced concept team is a high-level group with civilian and military members. This year it evaluated twelve projects totaling $4.0 million, including thermal imagery enhancement, armored vehicle machine guns, millimeter wave radar, two-dimensional image transformers, true north seeking compasses, stabilized sensor platforms and dynamic tank muzzle deflection measuring devices. So far the team has thirteen new projects starting in fiscal year 1978, which will commit $8.3 million over this and the next two fiscal years.

The Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command laboratories submitted ideas for new systems to the Research, Development, and Acquisition Committee. The systems selected for development in 1982-84 include airborne self-defense, antitactical missile defense, Army digital distribution, assault breaker, self-propelled howitzer, smart target activated fire and forget projectile, and other indirect fire and air defense weapons.

The Army Science Board advises the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff on research and development directions


and programs, system acquisition policies and procedures, and other matters that are affected by science and engineering. It functions under the cognizance of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition. The board was chartered in December 1977 to replace the Army's scientific advisory panel, ballistic missile defense technology advisory panel, ballistics research scientific advisory committee, Tank Automotive Research and Development Command scientific advisory group, and the scientific advisory group of the U.S. Army Missile Command. Its members are from industry, universities, and private consulting firms.

This year members were selected and processed, and an initial meeting was held 2-3 March 1978. The board participated with the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board in a summer study of battlefield system integration; in a ballistic missile defense standing committee to review the program; and in a quick reaction group for the SINCGARS program.

Science and Technology

The Corps of Engineers continued researching ice-engineering, bulk explosives, pavement surfaces, and other subjects:

Work proceeded on the problem of helicopter rotor blade icing. Tests of ice phobic materials reduced material candidates from approximately two hundred to five. A time-saving laboratory technique was developed simulating the icing of rotor blades.

Standardization testing of the contract blasting agent DBA 105P slurry explosive was the main activity in the military engineering applications of commercial explosives program during the year. The tests of this slurry explosive are being conducted by the U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, with the aim of providing the field army with techniques and doctrinal guidance for using the explosive.

A successful method for rapid excavation of antitank ditches was demonstrated during field test no. 3 at the Big Black Test Site, Mississippi. A series of PVC pipe placement/demolition tests were conducted in May and June at the Truman Reservoir at Warsaw, Missouri. Field test nos. 4-6 were held at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; the Tropic Test Center, canal zone; and the Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in June, July, and August, respectively. Limited pumping tests of the blasting agent at the Big Black Test Site and tests at the Yuma Proving Ground for placing and detonating pipes over 400 feet were carried out


in September. A letter report, Evaluation of Cratering Effectiveness of IRECO DBA-105P Slurry Blasting Agent, and a summary data report, Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper N-78-5 on blast cratering, were published.

Research on more cost-effective pavements in frost areas is performed by the Corps of Engineers, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration. Recently this work has been combined in a study at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Combining efforts and funds will save time and. energy. The use of most state highway specified materials for roads and parking areas constructed by the Corps of Engineers was permitted on a job-to job basis until June 1974. Since state pavements were generally satisfactory, the use of asphalt concrete meeting state requirements was permitted without Office of the Chief of Engineers approval after that date. Following state requirements has saved money and produced satisfactory pavements. Widening their use is under consideration.

The U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station is testing regulated-set cement for rapid repairs and restoring battle damaged pavement. The load-carrying capabilities of four full-scale regulated-set cement sections were analyzed, and laboratory studies were done of the time-temperature-chemical additive effects on hydration times for regulated-set cement. Waterways Experiment Station personnel made two trips to Germany to train Army personnel to use it. They provided Army forces in Europe with a document summarizing pavement repair and rehabilitation, technical report C-78-2, and a film demonstrating the use of regulated-set cement.

Newly developed load-transfer devices were constructed, incorporated with asphalt concrete, soils stabilization, portland cement concrete, rapid-setting grout, and crushed limestone surfaces. Loading tests are now under way using full-scale loads of C-141 and F4 cargo and fighter/bomber aircraft.

This year's progress in the study of battlefield obscuration was motivated by the urgent need to understand the effects of natural and artificial aerosols on guidance and observation systems. The Army developed a plan for a library of algorithms and computer codes describing the effects of aerosols on electrooptical sensors. The goal is to replace battlefield testing with computer simulation. Field measurements for this purpose and in support of Copperhead tests were made at Meppen and Baumholder, Germany.

The Army made advances in electro-optical climatology, and


in measuring dust and smoke cloud growth. Preliminary work was done on a field device which measures the smoke given off by munitions. At the White Sands Missile Range, a large field test was conducted to determine the effects of dust on electrooptical/near millimeter wave transmission. Additional research was carried out at Dugway Proving Ground and Fort Sill. The U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station and the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory assisted the Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory in planning these experiments.

Work on the Army terrain information system concentrated on developing laboratory models of tactical terrain information applications. A target locater was developed covering a 10 by 10 km. area based upon digital terrain data. TRADOC approved a letter of agreement to develop a quick-response multicolor copier for reproducing maps under tactical conditions. In September the Army contracted Xerox to design the copier.

Ballistic Missile Defense

Ballistic missile defense research and development continued this year, a hedge against the strategic uncertainties associated with the ballistic missile threat to the United States. Perimeter acquisition radar functions were transferred from the Army to the Air Force. The ballistic missile defense program was authorized 65 military and 431 civilian spaces for fiscal year 1978, and funds of $295,724,000: $107,297,000 for the advanced technology program, $106,188,000 for the systems technology program, and $82,239,000 for the Kwajalein Missile Range.

The advanced technology program continued to place increasing emphasis on transfer of mature technologies to the systems technology program and pursuing more advanced and innovative technologies. Major accomplishments during fiscal year 1978 were in data processing, discrimination, missiles, optics, radar, and technology analysis. Comparative analysis verified a millimeter wave radar homing guidance construct as an approach to endoatmospheric nonnuclear kill ballistic' missile defense systems. Design was completed for a liquid bipropellant propulsion subsystem for testing as an exoatmospheric direct impact interceptor vehicle. Subscale hot gas tests of a high-force, movable booster control nozzle were conducted. An optical signal processor with an increased capability over those of conventional signal processors was tested. The design of a modular missile-borne computer that will perform on-board data processing for an advanced ballistic missile defense interceptor was


completed. Studies of particle beam technology for potential BMD application have been conducted.

The systems technology program in fiscal year 1978 centered on reducing system cost, improving effectiveness, and reducing lead time in the face of a growing and increasingly sophisticated threat. Analysis progressed of the layered defense system and the low altitude defense system. A contract was let for the homing overlay experiment interceptor; and the systems technology testing program went forward at the Kwajalein Missile Range.

Layered defense is a defense system with two layers operating cooperatively and selectively. It is a cost-effective source of exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric protection against Soviet reentry vehicles and sophisticated multiple target reentry vehicles. The system began early in fiscal year 1978 following an analysis in fiscal year 1977. The analysis showed that layered defense would be more robust and cost-effective than any of the other options available to counter the advancing Soviet threat to U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile forces.

The homing overlay experiment has two phases. The goal is to verify the technology associated with the overlay portion of the layered defense system. The first phase was a competitively awarded, multiple contractor study. In September 1977 the Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Command awarded contracts to the Boeing Company, Vought Corporation, and Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. Lockheed won the competition and was a-warded a contract on 3 August 1978 to conduct the homing and kill phase of the experiment. Lockheed has the option to provide hardware and engineering services for the second phase of the experiment, demonstrating the technology necessary to detect, discriminate, and designate reentry vehicles at a range of several hundred miles in the presence of other objects.

The low altitude defense system analysis effort was initiated in fiscal year 1977. This year's work was devoted to examining in more depth the most promising concepts that had been analyzed. The effort pinpointed the technological problems of operating the system, especially in the severe nuclear environment associated with deploying an MX intercontinental ballistic missile. It also evaluated available and potential solutions. The results of the analysis are favorable enough to ensure it will continue in fiscal year 1979.

This year systems technology testing at the Kwajalein Missile Range focused upon the key hardware and software associated with the, terminal ballistic missile defense system. Late in fiscal year 1977, the radar and data processors were tested separately.


Integration testing using limited capability software was begun, continuing into this year. It included detecting, tracking, and discriminating reentry vehicles from target of opportunity "threat clouds" launched from Vandenberg Air Force base. The software was steadily upgraded. The test is nearly over, and results indicate that the radar, data processing hardware, and software will meet or exceed design goals.

The Ballistic Missile Defense System Command operates the Kwajalein Missile Range. The range successfully supported Air Force tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from Vandenberg Air Force base. Numerous agencies benefited from the results.

The Army's System Technology and Test Facility phased array radar continued receiving extensive base and technical support. The Ballistic Missile Defense Advanced Technology Center's optical station was supported to a lesser degree.

The Army made preparations for testing the designating optical tracker. Costs were considerably reduced by a high-speed data link between components of the data processing center. Test plans were completed, and steps were taken to meet U.S. Air Force requirements for collecting data on land impacts of reentry vehicles. Alternatives were studied for meeting these requirements for impacts approximately 200 kilometers up range. Space object identification efforts continued, and satellite track files were improved. Tests over a three-month period confirmed an expanded satellite detection and tracking capability.

The ALTAIR, a long-range tracking and instrumentation radar, demonstrated the ability to support Army and Air Force requirements for detecting and tracking foreign launches and cataloging other space objects: This successful effort determined the ALTAIR's adequacy as a contributing sensor to the Air Force's Pacific Radar Barrier and National Space Surveillance Control Center surveillance networks.

The Kwajalein multistatic measurement system was designed and initiated. It will perform target resolution discrimination experiments using the ALTAIR long-range tracking and instrumentation radar with bistatic receivers on remote sites. It will also provide an all-weather, highly accurate trajectory for intercontinental ballistic missile and other tests at the Kwajalein Missile Range.


In fiscal year 1978 the Army moved closer to a new generation of weaponry and equipment. Requirements for common


NATO standards and other factors changed and delayed some programs.

This year the Army received $561.4 million for missile procurement. Plans for using the funds included buying the U.S. Roland and Stinger air defense systems, improving near-term air defense by procuring better Chaparral and Hawk missiles, raising antitank readiness with additional Dragon and TOW practice missiles, and improving assault missile fire support by purchasing enough Pershing la missiles to maintain the stockpile necessary to the quick-reaction alert role until Pershing II is supplied to the field.

The Patriot air defense program began a transition from development to production planning. Early in the year the project underwent a major reorganization to support phase II development and operational testing and to plan for a full-production decision that the Defense System Acquisition Review Council (DSARC) was expected to make in fiscal year 1980. Among the changes, the duties of the assistant project manager for development were expanded to include acquisition, and the assistant project manager for support was given more responsibilities.

The system reached a milestone on 13 October 1977 when an $83.5 million modification was awarded the engineering development contract, initiating the producibility engineering and planning effort. During December phase II search and track tests were completed.

Preparations were under way at White Sands Missile Range for the test flight with fire unit #2 by 1 October 1977. Flight testing in an electronic countermeasure resumed with a successful intercept of a drone on 4 November 1977 and the engagement of a formation target on 8 February 1978. On 24 April, using the tactical canister for the first time, Patriot scored a direct hit on a high-altitude target. Although all missiles were launched successfully during a major test of its multiple simultaneous engagement capability on 21 May, reliability failures in the missiles prevented successful test completion. The test was repeated with success on 4 October.

The modular digital guidance system's design test was completed, and the first such forebody was delivered for preflight certification testing in December 1977. During the summer of 1978 the White Sands Missile Range made preparations for the first modular digital guidance system flight. It was successfully conducted on 28 September. The "box score" for Patriot flight tests at the end of fiscal year 1978 was twenty-seven successes, two partial successes, one failure, and three no-tests.


The U.S. Roland short-range air defense system is based upon a European design. This fiscal year the system entered a full-scale test phase. The Army began adapting European manufacturing methods to U.S. techniques. The first fabricated U.S. Roland missile was delivered in mid-October 1977. Fire unit # 1 was delivered to the Army by Boeing Aerospace Corporation in November. During the year four more fire units and seventy-three missiles were delivered for test and evaluation. A European organizational maintenance test set and an operator proficiency trainer evaluator were also delivered to the U.S. test site.

The Roland live firing test started at White Sands Missile Range on 1 February 1978. Early in September operations were suspended to give full support to the nonfiring tests which began in mid-September at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The Army conducted fifty firing missions; thirty-four were totally successful; five were partially successful. In addition, one fire unit completed 1,500 miles of roadability tests in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, with no significant problems.

Five companies submitted proposals for prototypes of the divisional air defense gun. The U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command selected two for competitive development. The DSARC II was conducted on 22 November 1977. The selection of the Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation and General Dynamics was announced on 29 November. On 5 January 1978 the DSARC recommended an innovative 29-month "skunk works," "hands-off" development program followed by a three-month combined development and operational test. The Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the recommendation on 6 January. The U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command signed fixed-price contracts with Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation, Aeronautic Division for $39,600,000, and with General Dynamics, Pomona Division for $39,135,000.

The general support rocket system is a multiple rocket launcher which will supplement conventional cannon artillery. It also has the potential to incorporate other warheads and terminal homing for attacking point targets, carrying scatterable mines, and smoke. On 16 September 1977 contracts for the initial 29-month validation phase were signed with the Vought Corporation and Boeing Corporation. Contract modifications altering the rocket design were signed in June 1978, extending the validation phase three months. The first carrier vehicle was completed in July 1978.


Development test I of the Pershing II missile was conducted from November 1977 to May 1978. There were five missile flights. The test accomplished all advanced development objectives. The staff made intensive preparations to move Pershing II from advanced development to engineering development. On 18 July 1978 the Army System Acquisition Review Council recommended engineering development for the system. On 21 August the Secretary of Defense issued an amended program decision memorandum directing the Army to limit the Pershing II program to the extended range variant and proceed to a review by the Defense System Acquisition Review Council as soon as possible.

A trade-off analysis was conducted of eight runway penetrator submunitions for the Pershing II system. A government committee was formed to make the final evaluation, and a baseline configuration was selected. The autopilot for the Pershing II remotely piloted vehicle was restructured to support the trajectory requirements of nonnuclear missions. Trajectory simulations were carried out to determine system range, maneuverability, and terminal accuracy. The program ended at the close of fiscal year 1978 because Congress did not provide funds for it.

The Chaparral system, which has been operating since 1969, provides fair weather, low-altitude air defense for division and corps rear. This year efforts centered on alleviating some of its limitations. In May the Army awarded a production contract for 850 Chaparral missiles with improved guidance sections, warheads, and fuses. Twenty more improved Chaparral missiles were prepared to replace older missiles sold to foreign governments. The development of a smokeless motor for the Chaparral missile was nearly completed. It was classified standard and approved for production in September. An electronic identification, friend-or-foe system for the Chaparral launcher was completed, but funding constraints delayed procurement until fiscal year 1979.

The Army continued to improve the Hawk missile system. Prototypes were begun for two product improvement programs and testing began on a third. An improved tracking adjust system was tested successfully in a tactical environment, but there were some reliability problems which the Army will resolve before making a production decision. Planning moved forward on three additional programs to improve the Hawk's tactical capability, reliability, and maintainability. Production contracts exceeding $89.6 million were awarded for ground support


equipment and missiles. Final procurement for the Block I product improvement programs brought the total for Hawk procurement to approximately $122.7 million.

The Stinger missile system went into production following reviews of the completed basic Stinger development program by the ASARC on 20 October 1977 and by the DSARC on 29 November 1977. Basic Stinger was type-classified as Standard LCCA. Before signing the initial production contract, the Army negotiated options for full data rights to pave the way for NATO coproduction. Stinger Arctic test firings were conducted in April 1978 at Fort Greeley, Alaska. Development proceeded on the passive optical seeker technique.

The Hellfire modular missile system progressed smoothly in full-scale engineering development. Qualification tests for all major components neared completion with excellent results. One programmed and three ballistic flights successfully initiated testing. Test bed helicopter performance and load tests were carried out for integration into the missile system qualification and operational tests. The laser seeker competition begun last year succeeded in reducing costs. The Army is considering other seekers for development to fully exploit the potential of the Hellfire system.

The design of the Viper nonportable antitank weapon was frozen on 31 January 1978 and was tested successfully by 30 June. Building hardware was begun to support a prototype qualification test scheduled for early in fiscal year 1979. A production facility contract was awarded in September 1977 for the Viper propellant burn rate additive carborane, and completion is expected in May 1979. A metal parts and assembly facility contract was awarded on 30 September 1978. Equipment should be in place by March 1980.

On 13 January 1978 the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved the close combat antiarmor mission element need statement. This need statement, the first approved among all the services, described general requirements for infantry light, medium, and heavy antiarmor weapons. It identified a number of critical performance requirements based on analysis of projected threat and deficiencies of current weapons. The Viper system satisfied the statement's requirements for the light system. The Defense Department directed the Army to examine options for improving or replacing the Dragon and TOW systems to satisfy requirements for medium and heavy systems.

The heavy weapon (TOW follow-on) was labeled the advanced heavy antitank missile system. It will provide a crew-


portable weapon to defeat advanced armored vehicles. It will have increased range and rate of engagement, improved performance in battlefield obscurants, resistance to electronic and electro-optical countermeasures, and can be used against attack helicopters. In January 1978 the advanced heavy antitank missile system project office awarded study contracts to five firms to conduct a four-month evaluation of the technology base, consider trade-offs, and recommend advanced heavy antitank missile system concepts.

A Department of the Army special task force was established on 10 May 1978 to evaluate close combat antiarmor requirements and explore, analyze, and select alternative systems to meet post-1985 needs. The results of the project office study contracts were turned over to the special task force in June. The task force also received concepts for TOW improvement, a ground-launched Hellfire, and a new recoilless rifle.

In August the House and Senate Armed Services Committees reduced close combat antiarmor system funds for 1979 from $8.1 million to $1.0 million. The committee directed the Army to evaluate a ground-launched Hellfire for the TOW follow-on role. Due to limited funds, conceptual work on a Dragon follow-on was dropped.

This year the Army received a $658.7 million aircraft procurement appropriation to relieve the shortage of attack helicopters and to modernize the utility fleet. Plans were to purchase AH-1S attack and Black Hawk utility helicopters and to modify the following airplanes: observation STOL, OV-1 (Mohawk), reconnaissance RU-21 and RV-1, utility U-21 (Ute) and U-8 (Seminole); and helicopters: attack AH-1 (Cobra), cargo CH-47 (Chinook) and Ch-54 (Tarhe); electronic EH-1H, observation OH-6 (Cayuse) and OH-58 (Kiowa), and utility UH-1 (Iroquois).

Developing the advanced attack helicopter (YAH-64) remained one of the Army's highest priorities. The YAH-64 is the first Army attack helicopter designed specifically for day or night, adverse weather, antiarmor missions. It carries a crew of two; the pilot in the rear, the copilot gunner operating the weapons systems from the front seat. Two competing contractors had developed target acquisition designation and pilot night vision systems. This year they completed the design and began the prototype. In September 1978 the first target acquisition designation and pilot night vision systems were delivered to the prime contractor for installation and testing.

In October 1977 the Army exercised the first-year produc-


tion contract option with Sikorsky Aircraft Company for procuring fifty-six UH-60A (Black Hawk) utility helicopters, and with General Electric for T700 engines. Component qualification testing continued. In March 1978, two months ahead of schedule, General Electric delivered the first production gas turbine engine for the UH-60A. In May there was an accident at the Sikorsky factory. Three crewmen and one of the three test prototypes were lost. The accident was caused by failure to reconnect the airspeed sensing devices which control the horizontal stabilator on the tail section after routine overnight maintenance. A warning signal has been added to the design to indicate stabilator malfunction, and the instrument panel has been rearranged. The accident delayed aircraft delivery from August to October 1978.

Structural modification of the first CH-47 (Chinook) in the modernization (CH-47D) program was accomplished. Work on the second and third prototype continues ahead of schedule. The aircraft systems design, the fiberglass rotor blades, and the 110-hour whirl tower tests have been completed. Flight qualification of the CH-47C blades will be finished early in fiscal year 1979. Various other system elements have been tested or are in bench qualification or endurance testing. Plans were made to assure an orderly transition from development to production, and the contract proposal was received.

The purchase of 297 new AH-1S Cobra/TOW aircraft is on schedule. Deliveries started in March 1977. By the end of September 1978 106 new airframes had been delivered. In February deliveries began of 215 improved main rotor blades. The "universal turret" and the wing stores management system were completed.

Efforts were made to obtain Army, Defense, and congressional support for reinitiating the advanced scout helicopter program. In accord with a Headquarters, Department of the Army directive, in August 1978 TRADOC formed a special group to study the subject. The first meeting was on 29 September.

The Army's obligation authority for weapons and tracked combat vehicles for fiscal year 1978 was $1,408.6 million. The funds were slated for improving tank and mechanized forces, and for weapons ranging in size from 155-mm. howitzers to mortars and M2 machine guns.

In February 1978 the first two M60AIE3 (M60A3) tanks of the 296 funded in fiscal year 197T and 1977 were produced at the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant. Development test III began in


April at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Seven tanks will be tested through January 1979. The Army and the Defense Department waived operational test III. Instead, TRADOC is conducting a force development test and experiment at Fort Polk, Louisiana.

Chrysler Corporation delivered eleven XM1 tank pilot vehicles to Army installations between early February and mid July 1978. Early in the year the XM1 project established liaison offices at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and Fort Bliss, Texas, to support user evaluations of the tanks. Development test II and operational test II began on schedule, there were several planning conferences, and plans were made to introduce the XM 1 to the field.

On 31 January 1978 the Army formally announced that the West German 120-mm. smoothbore gun system would be developed in the U.S. for the XM1 tank. A special ASARC meeting approved a 120-mm. gun program in April, but it was delayed by a lack of congressional approval of funds and a satisfactory license agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany.

Fabrication of eight infantry/cavalry fighting vehicle prototypes began with delivery expected early in fiscal year 1979. Two 25-mm. automatic guns, one external, the other self powered, underwent competitive testing. A decision will be made in January 1979. The initial test firing of the TOW antitank guided missile mounted on the infantry fighting vehicle turret was successful. Procurement funds for the infantry/cavalry fighting vehicle were deleted from the 1979 presidential budget, but Congress restored $39 million for long-lead procurement. The Army finished two studies on this program. The first answered a congressional request by confirming the vehicle's requirement and design, the second answered a Defense request by evaluating less costly derivatives.

On 25 October 19'77 a four-year, $49.9 million contract for carriage assemblies for the M 198 155-mm. towed howitzer was awarded to Consolidated Diesel Electric Company. The Rock Island Arsenal produced the first two howitzers in June 1978. Five additional howitzers were delivered by September. First article system testing was completed in August. Force development and experimentation tests will be conducted in October 1978.

The XM204 howitzer, the first artillery weapon to use the soft recoil concept, completed development. The process culminated with a development acceptance in-process review on 9 February 1978. Participants agreed that the howitzer had suc-


cessfully completed development and recommended it be type classified standard: This recommendation was approved on 9 May 1978 by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition. At the same time, he gave orders against its procurement.

Development test III of low-rate-initial production improved TOW vehicle systems concluded in June 1978. Operational test III, suspended in late 1977 for reliability improvement, resumed in mid January 1978. It ended successfully in March. A production validation in-process review was held 21 June 1978. The panel recommended the improved TOW vehicle system be type-classified standard and approved for full-scale production. The recommendation was approved and the vehicle was type classified Combat Vehicle Anti-Tank, Improved Tow Vehicle (ITV) W/O TOW, M901.

Development of a fire integration support team vehicle was directed toward defining the program and obtaining program approval. Emerson Electric Company successfully demonstrated the improved TOW vehicle/fire integration support team vehicle concept in June 1978. Operational capability for the program is in final staffing, and personnel requirements were established.

The squad automatic weapon is a potential replacement for the M16AI rifle in selected automatic fire missions. Four squad automatic weapons were selected for evaluation: two U.S. (XM248 and XM106), one Belgian (XM249), and one German (HK214-1.). Validation phase testing is scheduled to begin at Fort Benning in fiscal year 1979.

The fiscal year 1978 Army appropriation of $1,258.1 million for ammunition procurement covered ammunition hardware, production base support, facility modernization, production improvement, and the annual support of ammunition facilities and layaway production lines. Tank and artillery munitions were the major funding areas.

From 1 October 1977 to 30 September 1978, the government and its contractor, Martin Marietta Aerospace, conducted twenty-seven test firings of Copperhead, the cannon launched guided projectile. Twelve of the first twenty-one firings achieved direct hits on stationary and moving tank targets; the other nine failed to function properly and missed the target. The failures were due to a faulty aerodynamic projectile shape or a gyroscope malfunction. Modifying these deficiencies delayed the remainder of the development program. Of the six subsequent firings, four were successful. Work began on an initial production line for which special production equipment was ordered.


The amount provided for other Army procurement was $1,459.2 million. This category covers three areas: tactical and support vehicles, communications and electronics, and other support equipment.

The stand-off target acquisition system was approved for full-scale engineering development in August 1978. Pending its production, two advanced development systems were assembled for allocation to USAREUR. Both systems will be fielded by January 1979.

Firefinder, a hostile weapons radar locater, consisting of the AN/TPQ-36 mortar locating radar and the AN/TPQ-37 artillery locating radar, should locate enemy mortars, artillery, and rockets with sufficient accuracy and speed to permit effective counterfire. Hughes Aircraft Company is the prime contractor. Both radars have met principal performance requirements. The ASARC approved type-classification standard and full-scale production of the AN/TPQ-36 in December 1977, and a fixed price contract was awarded to Hughes Aircraft Company in August 1978. Two engineering development models of the AN/TPQ-36 were sent to Europe in September, and will become operational in October 1978. The initial low-rate production AN/TPQ-37 radars are scheduled for delivery to the Army early in 1979.

Contracts were awarded for a number of night vision systems using infrared common modules. These were the man-portable common thermal night sights: AN/TAS-4 (TOW), AN/TAS-5 (Dragon), and AN/TAS-6 (night observation device, long range). The infrared aiming light was type-classified limited standard and will be employed by ranger and special forces units in conjunction with the AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles. Work proceeded on low-cost night vision aids and high-performance third generation image intensifier goggles to permit nap-of-the-earth flight in overcast starlight conditions.

The Aquila remotely piloted vehicle systems technology demonstration was a joint materiel developer/combat developer "hands on" experimentation and testing program. The goal was to understand the role of the remotely piloted vehicle, determine its place in the force structure, and determine how it should be integrated into command, control, and targeting systems. The system was tested at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. It has now undergone extensive testing by Army crews. Target acquisition, artillery adjustment, and laser designation were demonstrated. In March survivability testing at Fort Bliss proved the difficulty of shooting down a small remote piloted vehicle. At the end of


testing a required operational capability was written. Joint technical coordinating group meetings continued and Army-Marine Corps coordination was begun.

High energy laser technology continued development. The Army approved a letter of agreement between TRADOC and' the Army Materiel Readiness and Development Command. A number of experimental devices were fabricated and tested. In a joint test with the Navy, laboratory equipment engaged and shot down TOW missiles.

This year the military departments established the joint service small arms program. In May the Army was designated the program's executive agent. The goal is to ensure commonality of small arms requirements among U.S. land, air, and naval forces. Small arms include but are not limited to pistols, rifles, special purpose weapons and ammunition.

Development test II and operational test II began on the XM736 eight-inch binary VX projectile. The tests covered safety, storage and transportation, air drop, soldier evaluation, canister surveillance/transportation, reliability, and phase II firing tables. Plans were made for an integrated binary production facility to support Defense budget actions for production. The facility will manufacture and load one component of type-classified binary munitions. There were studies in site selection and in manufacture, disposal, and process design.

Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability

Rationalization, standardization, and interoperability (RSI) policy issues from the highest levels of military and civilian leadership. In his Fiscal Year 1980-84 Consolidated Guidance, the Secretary of Defense stated: "Adequate conventional defense is within NATO's reach at an acceptable cost if we can make the separate national forces of the Alliance work together more efficiently in coalition defense . . . . Simply stated, we need to continue to support NATO rationalization/interoperability/ standardization initiatives." On 10 May 1977 President Carter delivered an address to the North Atlantic Council. He emphasized the willingness and desire of the U.S. to promote cooperation with our European allies. In particular he broached the idea of a coordinated long-term defense improvement program. He committed the U.S. to greater cooperation in developing, producing, and procuring defense equipment, and to a genuine "two-way street" in transatlantic defense trade.

In his 6 January 1978 address to the North Atlantic Council, President Carter again stressed our nation's commitment to our


NATO allies. Urging NATO to approve the long-term defense program, he pointed out the increases in U.S. defense spending for the coming year and in U.S. forces for NATO. The White House has consistently supported NATO, encouraging a more forceful role for its European members.

Public Law 94-361, section 802, popularly known as the Culver-Nunn Amendment, stated: "It is the policy of the. United States that equipment procured for U.S. forces stationed in Europe under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty should be standardized or, at a minimum, interoperable with equipment of other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." This statement underlies Defense policy.

Department of Defense Directive 2010.6, on standardization and interoperability of NATO weapons systems and equipment, and Chief of Staff Army Memorandum 77-34-46, on the same subject, amplify and interpret the Culver-Nunn Amendment, and form the basis for Army RSI (recorder status indicator) documents. The following are key policy edits from Directive 2010.6:

The Department of Defense will actively seek standardization and interoperability of weapons systems and equipment within NATO on a priority basis in order to conserve resources and increase the combined combat capability of U.S. and NATO Forces. The DOD components will include NATO standardization and interoperability goals as fundamental considerations in their development and procurement programs for both major and minor items . . . .

DOD research and development (R&D) activities will pursue a mutually cooperative and beneficial policy regarding exchange of information with NATO partners . . . .

In his memorandum of 25 February 1978, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established five Defense RSI priorities. In order they are:

1. Interoperability of command, control, and communications systems.
2. Cross-servicing of aircraft.
3. Interchangeable ammunition.
4. Interoperable battlefield surveillance/target designation/acquisition systems.
5. Standardization/interoperability of components and spare parts.

In their memo of 21 September 1977, the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army set the Army's RSI goals:

1. Fight as part of the NATO coalition-credible defense of NATO


rests on integrated cooperation with our allies. 2. Develop equipment and logistics support procedures for fostering our mutual ability to deter aggression. 3. Support RSI of equipment. Emphasize ammunition compatibility; logistical interoperability; C3; and operating security. 4. Make doctrine compatible with that of our allies. 5. Develop by 1979 a coordinated program for the development, procurement, acquisition, and support of NATO standardization initiatives. 6. Establish by mid Calendar Year 1978 a program to improve prepositioning of materiel configured to unit sets mix and enhance interoperability.

This year Army RSI efforts centered on the Defense priority areas, planning in support of the long-term defense program, and cooperating with and acquisitioning from our NATO allies.

In the command, control, and communications area, both the U.S. and the United Kingdom offered interoperable equipment satisfying the secure voice requirement to NATO. Two meetings are scheduled on various NATO command and control problems. NATO countries have been invited to submit candidates for the SINCGARS Ground and Airborne radio. The European telephone system is progressing. Finally, copies of the U.S. French communications interoperability pamphlet published by USAREUR have been distributed.

Interoperability of the U.S. TACFIRE and Federal Republic of Germany ADLER artillery fire control systems has been vigorously pursued. The manager of artillery tactical automated data systems has established a data exchange agreement with the Germans. A memorandum of understanding to continue cooperating on automated artillery systems is in development.

USAREUR and DARCOM have been working with allied national agencies on ammunition interoperability. They want to certify the safety of allied manufactured weapons and ammunition fielded for peacetime use.

A ballistic data exchange revealed that 155-mm., 175-mm., and 8-inch artillery ammunition are completely interchangeable. All nations use U.S. ammunition or foreign ammunition manufactured to U.S. specifications.

The United States recently signed separate interoperability/ safety agreements with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the United Kingdom relating to the following systems:

  Weapon    Ammunition
US/FRG 155-mm. how M109/M109A1   High expl shell/charge
  175-mm. gun M107   HE
  8-inch how M119/M110A1   HE
  105-mm. tank gun M68   APDS/HEAT


  Weapon (cont'd.)    Ammunition (cont'd.)
US/UK   155-mm. how M109A1  HE
  8-inch how M110A1  HE
  105-mm. tank gun M68 * 81-mm. mortar  APDS/HEAT

* Anticipate agreement very shortly

Fielded ammunition was certified safe for peacetime firing. USAREUR will seek similar agreements with the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and France.

Eight-inch artillery ammunition exchange/confidence firings between U.S. and German units were conducted in April 1978 at Grofenwoehr. They demonstrated interchangeability between U.S. and German manufactured ammunition.

NATO's major artillery development effort involves 155mm. howitzers and ammunition. A 155-mm. field artillery ballistics development memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and the Trilateral countries (United Kingdom, Germany, Italy) was signed in March 1978. All new U.S. and Trilateral ammunition is in agreement with it. The new Trilateral FH-70 howitzer and its associated ammunition, and the U.S. M549 (Rocket Assisted Projectile) and M483AI (Improved Conventional Munitions) projectiles will soon be fielded. They should be compatible.

Initial test programs on the compatibility of new projectiles and propelling charges have been exchanged between the U.S. and Trilateral countries. They are being reviewed nationally to eliminate duplication. Tests of the United Kingdom's propelling charges and the U.S.'s rocket assisted projectiles will begin in 1979 if charges are available.

There was progress in battlefield surveillance, particularly in the stand-off target acquisition system, ground laser designators, and remotely piloted vehicles.

To foster standardization and interoperability of stand-off target acquisition systems with our NATO allies, demonstration and validation were conducted in consultation with principal NATO members, and engineering development has been structured to further these goals. There were demonstrations of systems effectiveness during two REFORGER operations in Europe. U.S. laser designators arid seekers are being designed in accordance with NATO STANAG 3733.

The U.S. and Great Britain worked out a memorandum of understanding on exchanging information on remotely piloted vehicles with a view to interoperability. American and United Kingdom requirements for remotely piloted vehicles are quite similar. The United Kingdom is starting a rotary remotely pi-


loted vehicle program; the U.S. is starting full-scale development of a fixed-wing vehicle. There is the possibility of interoperability in sensors, data links, ground control stations, engines, and tactics.

NATO nations have taken several steps to increase the standardization and interoperability of components and spare parts. The Land Forces Logistics Working Party works toward logistics standardization of NATO land forces. The U.S. delegate was invited to discuss logistics interoperability during the September 1978 meeting in Brussels. During a recent U.S./Federal Republic of Germany logistics staff conference the Germans introduced a proposal to provide helicopter maintenance support to U.S. forces. Contracts for helicopter depot maintenance (conversion of AH-1Q to AH-1S and OH-58A to OH-58C) have been awarded to a German firm. This program will enhance in country potential for wartime maintenance support to U.S. forces.

USAREUR completed testing and is procuring fuel adapters and couplings to ensure interoperability with NATO petroleum tank trucks, tank cars, and fixed facilities. These couplings and adapters provide an easy and safe way to load and discharge commercial German rail cars, and to adapt U.S. POL tankers to German POL systems.

The NATO Long-Term Defense Plan proposed by President Carter was approved by heads of state during the Washington summit of 30-31 May 1978. It is the single most significant step in NATO coalition defense planning in recent years. A comprehensive program covering ten general areas, the program represents a major commitment to defense improvement. The nations agreed to a 3 percent real-dollar increase in defense spending per year, and approved actions in the following areas: readiness, reinforcement, reserve mobilization, maritime posture, air defense, command, control, communications, electronic warfare, rationalization, consumer logistics, and theater nuclear forces. The NATO international military staff and nations are clarifying these actions. A summary of the approved items has been circulated, and nations have been asked to submit comments and plans to NATO. Most actions pertaining to the United States have already been planned in service program objective memoranda.

The joint United States/Federal Republic of Germany staff talks are crucial to doctrinal compatibility between the U.S. and NATO. Doctrinal concept papers completed or under development are shown below:


Concept     Lead    Status
1 Warsaw Pact threat   US    Ratified/signed Nov 76
2 Antiarmor   FRG    Ratified/signed Nov 76
3 Air defense   US    Ratified/signed Aug 77
4 Airmobile operations   US    Ratified/signed Aug 77
5 Mobility/countermobility   FRG    Ratified/signed Aug 77
6 Fire support   FRG    Ratified/signed Apr 78
7 MOBA   FRG    Ratified/signed Apr 78
8 Reconnaissance US  Ratified/signed Apr 78
9 Terrain (geographic description of FRG)   FRG    Ratified/signed Apr 78
10 NBC defense   FRG    Agreement in principle-Jun 78
11 Night operations   US    Agreement before Feb 79
12 Tactical communications   US    Agreement before Feb 79
13 Air-land operations   US    Agreement possible Feb 79
14 Camouflage/deception   FRG    First draft
15 Electronic warfare   US    First draft
16 Continuous operations   FRG    First draft

The publication of ATP-35, Land Force Tactical Doctrine, was a major step toward developing common NATO tactical doctrine. Other bilateral talks continue between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Two items bear mention as examples of Army willingness to consider foreign systems as candidates for meeting U.S. requirements: the agreement to coproduce the European Roland air defense missile system, and the purchase of more than 8,000 German nontactical vehicles for the support of U.S. forces. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany will maintain the administrative vehicles. Other NATO countries have indicated interest in similar arrangements for administrative vehicles.

There was major progress in negotiating host nation support agreements with NATO allies. The Office of the Secretary of Defense granted USAREUR blanket permission to deviate from armed services procurement regulations. Legislation is pending before Congress to eliminate contractual provisions which our allies find objectionable. One important agreement negotiated and completed under the armed services procurement regulations deviation is for the German Army Maintenance Plant (Heeresinstandsetzungwerk 800) at Juelich, Federal Republic of Germany, to repair U.S. Army wheeled vehicles.

Most of the actions cited above will continue in coming years. Increased host nation support; greater cooperation with our European allies in research, development, testing, and evaluation; enhanced procurement from off-shore sources; and execution of the Long-Term Defense Plan will all have a tremendous impact on the Army's readiness to fight, reinforce, and sustain its operations in the European theater.



Go to:

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents

Search CMH Online
Return to CMH Online
Last updated 7 September 2004