Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1979


Research, Development, and Acquisition

In a jointly prepared statement to the Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations for the fiscal year 1980 procurement and R&D budgets, Dr. Percy A. Pierre, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASARDA), and Lt. Gen. Donald R. Keith, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (DCSRDA), commented on why equipment modernization has lagged in recent years.

During the Vietnam conflict R&D efforts on equipment that would be appropriate for a modern mechanical battlefield were constrained. Emphasis was placed on developing and procuring equipment for Southeast Asia. During the same period, the Soviets began an incredible modernization program for their tactical forces. It has manifested itself in a fielded Army that is both qualitatively and quantitatively superior to ours. Recognizing this, the Congress has supported us in a "catch-up” R&D program during the 1970’s that is just now ready to bear fruit—and it is badly needed to either make our Army a credible deterrent or, if deterrence fails, to give our soldiers a reasonable chance to fight outnumbered and win.

Budget, Management, and Acquisition

The initial approved program for fiscal year 1979 was based on the President’s budget. It included constraints which were placed on the Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDTE) program by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USDRE), who identified certain program elements as being of special interest. Total programs 6.1 (basic research) and 6.2 (exploratory development) were designated as a USDRE interest in order to maintain the approved dollar level in those categories. Twenty specific programs were identified as special interest and funds could not be reprogrammed from them without the prior approval of USDRE. The key special interest programs were identified as: large caliber and nuclear technology, unattended ground sensors, aircraft survivability/EW self-protection equipment, tactical electronic-warfare systems, NAVSTAR global positioning system, major RDTE facilities (DARCOM), and joint interoperability of tactical command and control systems. Department of Defense and Department of Army deferrals totaled $342 million and $60 million, respectively. Some of the significant programs deferred were:


identification, friend or foe (IFF) unit development; unattended ground sensors; tactical operations system; NAVSTAR global positioning system; terminal homing system; composite rotor blade; and M60A1 tank PIP.

The Department of Army Research and Development budget approved for fiscal year 1979 was $2,635.9 million. Congress passed the Defense Appropriation Act reducing the Army’s RDTE request of $2,721.4 million by $85.5 million in RDTE funds. The appropriation for RDTE funds included a $10.0 million budget offset for estimated collections from RDTE surcharges on foreign military sales. Congressional action reduced the RDTE technology base by $5.1 million. Other reductions included $8.0 million for terminal guidance technology, $10.3 million for Assault Breaker, $46.3 million for the tactical surveillance system, and $4.0 million for battlefield system integration. In addition, $10.1 million for the Pershing II program was transferred to the Air Force. The Army’s RDTE budget request for fiscal year 1980 of $2,855 million was submitted to the Program and Budget Committee in August 1978. The fiscal year 1980 budget for $2,927 million presented to Congress in January 1979 incorporated the decisions made during a review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Department of Defense (DOD).

Zero base budgeting was the primary method for the formulation of the Army Research and Development budget which was submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget (OSD/OMB). In addition to the three basic levels, OSD expanded the budget into nine bands resulting in a more detailed display of RDTE programs. Consolidated decision package sets (CDPS) were also required. The CDPS provided narrative justification for funding requested above the minimum level.

The Army continued to use total risk assessing cost estimates (TRACE) techniques in estimating costs for all major materiel developments. Ten systems were identified as having TRACE deferrals totaling $40 million in fiscal year 1979.

Congress appropriated a total of $3,437,000 for construction of RDTE facilities during the fiscal year. This figure included funds to expand the environmental test facilities, Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, and to air condition selected laboratories at the Natick Laboratories, Massachusetts. In addition, Congress appropriated $26,166,000 for construction of production and administrative buildings to support Army RDTE and production efforts. This figure included funds for the surface launched unit fuel-air ex-


plosive (SLUFAE) production facilities, Hawthorne, Nevada, AAP; Watervliet Arsenal, New York, modernization; and an engineering administration building at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ODCSRDA) and the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS), began creating essential elements of the Long Range Research, Development, and Acquisition Planning Program in 1979. Mission Area Analyses were begun by ODCSOPS through the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) while Science and Technology Plans, compatible with Mission Area Analyses, were begun by ODCSRDA through the Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM). Establishment of the Long Range Research, Development, and Acquisition Planning process is expected to result in early identification of system funding requirements to support the future Army and to provide a stable baseline against which constancy of requirements may be measured over a multiyear period.

The activities of the Army Advanced Concepts Team for the year were reduced due to limited funds. The program included development of a second generation thermal imaging system suitable for tank fire control (fitting in the space of the first generation system), demonstrations of a zero stage fan for uprating turboshaft engines, and of a large caliber, regenerating liquid propellant guns.

A technology base prereview for Program Objectives Memorandum 81-85 was held by the Research, Development, and Acquisition Committee in March 1979 to resolve issues and establish priorities for programs 6.1 (basic research) and 6.2 (exploratory development) in the program funding categories. To provide the basis for this review, technology base funding profiles and single project funding/single program element reports were prepared. Funds were allocated in accordance with the stated user needs as listed in the Science and Technology Objectives Guide (STOG) and emphasis was given to the solution of major Army problems.

The fiscal year 1979 obligation plan for the Army procurement appropriations was $7,144,000,000. This amount included $5,787,000,000 for direct Army procurement and $1,357,000,000 for reimbursable customer sales. The plan covered all obligations incurred during the current year from funds appropriated in fiscal years 1977, 1978, and 1979. Obligations incurred during fiscal year 1979 exceeded the plan by $68.2 million direct and


$80.0 million reimbursable. Successful achievement of the 1979 obligation plan resulted from obligating $1,191,000,000 in September. The lapse for the expiring fiscal year 1977 funds was $169.3 million. The lapse of $108.9 million in direct funds included $90.0 million for contingent liabilities. The lapse of $60.5 million in reimbursable funds resulted from use of government equipment to satisfy customer requirements.

The fiscal year 1980 Army procurement budget submitted by the President on 22 January 1979 contained a total obligational authority (TOA) request of $7,123,000,000. This was an increase of $.9 billion over fiscal year 1979. Action by the authorization and appropriations committees resulted in a net decrease of $147.0 million in the authorization appropriations. Aircraft procurement, Army (APA), was increased by $43.2 million for AH1S helicopters and C-12A aircraft. Missile procurement, Army (MIPA), and weapons and tracked combat vehicles, Army, were reduced by a total of $162.4 million.

The Army worked to coordinate and provide emphasis for several technologies with a potential for solving significant problems in fulfilling their user requirements. These special “Areas of Emphasis” required multilaboratory involvement in research and development which spanned the technology base. The areas identified were gun propulsion technology; millimeter wave radiation; smokes and aerosols; targets versus background signatures; fire control; armor and armor penetration; command control, communications and intelligence; and mobility/installations energy utilization. Programs have been developed which divide the labor among the responsible laboratories. This makes for better use of funds and lessens overlaps. Significant results obtained were improved smokes; improved tracking capability in fog, haze, and battlefield dust or smoke environments; significantly improved lifetime of gun tube barrels; determination of foreign target versus background signatures in the European environment; and organization of system engineering groups to address problems in interoperability and electronics equipment.

The annual in-house laboratory independent research (ILIR) review was held in late November 1978 and covered the present process, the future evaluation process, and the basic thrust of the program. The review initiated a major effort to revitalize the ILIR program to provide for new, innovative, high-risk tasks. Individual guidance letters were provided each participating laboratory by the Deputy for Science and Technology, OASA(RDA). The letters covered general program and specific laboratory guidance for fiscal year 1979. The general program of $16 mil-


lion initiated a joint project program between laboratories to increase program coordination and laboratory interchange on scientific topics.

A major effort to utilize the Modernized Army Research and Development Information System (MARDIS) to provide scientific data for managing the basic research program was undertaken in late fiscal year 1978 and early fiscal year 1979. Initially, it was determined that the MARDIS system could not provide the quantity, quality, type, or format of information required to effectively manage the research effort at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). Numerous changes to software and data submission requirements were made to provide the appropriate information in the form required. At the end of the fiscal year, final software changes were underway and laboratory submissions were being prepared.

Preparation of the new publication Compendium of Field Activities Key Scientific Capabilities was begun by the Directorate for Army Research to provide the Army laboratory system, newly assigned individuals to the Army staff, and emergency program planners with information on each laboratory’s mission, organization, major areas of interest, primary areas of research and development, and key personnel to contact.

The Army Science Board (ASB), the senior scientific advisory body to the Department of the Army, consists of ninety individuals appointed by the Secretary of the Army for a two-year term. The ASB was created by reorganization of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel (ASAP) in late 1977. Responsibility for the ASAP was transferred from the DCSRDA to the ASA(RDA) in June 1977 at the same time the latter was designated as the Scientific Advisor to the Secretary of the Army. In this first full year of operation, three general membership meetings were held at various locations. Among other activities conducted by groups, committees, and individual board members were reviews of the Army’s personnel organizations and program procedures and facilities at an Army ammunition plant after explosions have occurred, air defense programs with the ODCSOPS, reviews of statistical data being developed in the irradiated food program, and reviews of the Army’s posture. Assessments were made on the technical maturity and risks associated with the Hellfire, Assault Breaker, and Stinger post development programs, and on a particular aspect of the Patriot air defense system critical technology. A chemical decontamination/contamination avoidance program was proposed, the Ballistic Missile program and its directions reviewed and reported on, and the future use of the


Army’s computers reviewed. The board’s summer study team sought ways to improve the materiel acquisition system, visited various installations in Europe to gain first-hand knowledge of their activities and to show support for their goals, and visited Army laboratories to provide assistance and to acquire information for use at the annual in-house laboratory independent review.

The Army Science and Technology Objectives Guide (STOG) was published and distributed to appropriate agencies in May 1979. The STOG again served as the primary requirements document for the Science and Technology Base Program of research, exploratory development, and nonsystems advanced development.

Science and Technology

Research programs concerned with characterizing the realistic battlefield environment, ice engineering, restoration of paved surfaces, soil reinforcement, barrier and antitank ditch creation, and related matters were continued in fiscal year 1979 by the Corps of Engineers.

The U.S. Army Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory (ASL) also continued research to characterize a realistic battlefield environment. ASL completed an initial version of the electro-optical systems atmospheric effects library (Interim E-O SAEL) which assessed the obscuration effects of the realistic, dirty battlefield. Interim E-O SAEL addresses the central European area and is applicable to systems operating in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared spectral regions plus selected near millimeter wave frequencies. Obscuration effects have been modeled for atmospheric gases, adverse weather (fog, haze, rain, and snow), smoke, and dust produced by artillery fire. Interim E-O SAEL also addresses the effects of turbulence on low power laser transmission, the backscatter of laser energy from an obscurant, and the vertical variations of fogs and hazes. Dusty Infrared Test II (Dirt II) was conducted to determine dust obscuration effects on Army weapons systems. Dynamic weather scenarios for wargaming were generated for Army weapons systems and provided, as requested, to Army organizations. An improved smoke obscuration model and improved wind field models for smoke application were developed as was the disturbed infrared transmission (DIRTRAN) model to predict the growth, transport, diffusion and observation effects of dust produced by artillery shells. The complex refraction index of various dust samples and other atmospheric aerosols was measured and the response characteristics of aerosol particle counters were determined for measuring


both spherical and irregular particles, characteristics of atmospheric aerosols, and battlefield dust. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the ASL and the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (USACRREL) in fiscal year 1979 initiated the necessary research tasks. The USACRREL was designed as the principal laboratory for Corps of Engineer participation with the major thrust of research focused on the winter battlefield environment. A winter field research site was established at Camp Ethan Allen, Vermont.

The problem of ice accretion on rotor blades is extremely serious in Europe because of the variety of conditions that can combine to vary the ice accumulation. The USACRREL has developed a model to simulate the amount of ice accretion on an object by ascertaining the object’s characteristic dimensions and the surrounding conditions of temperature, cloud liquid water content, and droplet size spectra. The model will permit simulation of ice on helicopter rotor blades under various weather conditions encountered during winter in Europe. It also gives a reasonable method of comparing the characteristic ice accretions that can result from both varying external conditions and varying the characteristics of the collecting object.

A broad-band impulse radar system has been used to profile ice and snow covered lakes and rivers. Ice thickness, possible surface fractures, subsurface ice accumulations, water location and depth, bed geometry, and anomaly location may be determined from the data. The ice thickness data may be used in calculations of bearing capacity for specific vehicle traffic, a technique that was successfully employed in JACK FROST, the Army winter exercise conducted in Alaska.

Several nondestructive techniques for detecting moisture in roofs were evaluated. It was found that for Army use, on-the-roof surveys with a hand-held infrared scanning camera were the most accurate and cost effective. Results of this finding have been distributed to Army facility engineers and engineer districts and divisions worldwide. In the process of conducting this study, numerous Army roofs were surveyed and the results used to significantly improve roof maintenance programs. It is estimated that direct cost savings on the surveyed roofs easily exceeded $1 million.

Magnetic induction and radiowave methods have been used to obtain information on permafrost and active layer boundaries, occurrence of massive ice in the form of large wedges and lenses, thaw cones beneath arctic river channels and lakes, and potential or possible aquifers. These techniques are applicable for site


selections in cold regions where information is required on variations of subsurface materials and properties.

Research and development conducted at the U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station (USAWES) included: extension of the capabilities of Army mobility models, developing concepts for grid and membrane reinforcement of soils, techniques for using slurry explosives, fixed installation camouflage, military hydrology, nuclear weapons effects, structural response to nuclear weapons, and fixed fighting positions. The Army Mobility Model (AMM), a computer model to predict wheeled or tracked vehicle speeds, fuel consumption, load carrying capacity, or vibration levels on any specified mission has been under development at USAWES. The obstacle, ride dynamics, power train, and vehicle performance modules of the AMM were updated and revised. Improved submodels to predict vehicle performance in all types of shallow snow and in crossing linear features such as water obstacles were developed. A modeling concept to deal with ground movement rates through urban areas was formulated. A soil dynamics theory was applied in predicting the steering performance of high speed, tracked combat vehicles. A tracked vehicle transient steering simulation model was integrated with elements of the AMM.

Repair and Restoration of Paved Surfaces (REREPS) activities included construction of a pavement test track containing simulated repaired bomb craters. Traffic applied included C-141 and F-4 aircraft loadings. The repaired craters performed well under 5,000 aircraft loadings which were representative of the operational requirements in Europe. Results indicate that the use of a clean granular material, such as washed gravel or crushed stone, to backfill the craters and a crushed stone surfacing is the quickest to construct and requires the least equipment and personnel.

Grid and membrane reinforcement of soils for use in lines of communication where movement of Army vehicles over otherwise impassable areas are being developed. These concepts have potential for access to and egress from river and swampy areas and for crossing sandy beaches. Experiments using grids and membranes in soft soil conditions have shown that a reduction in thickness of surfacing material of up to one-half of the present criteria can be achieved.

Development of techniques for rapid creation of barriers, excavation of defensive positions, and demolition using slurry explosives was continued by USAWES under the military evaluation and application of commercial explosives program.


USAWES participated in field testing of the new blasting agent explosive which replaced an earlier unsatisfactory version. A demonstration was conducted of the Badger plow, which is ideal for placement of plastic pipe for antitank ditching.

An updated fixed-installation camouflage methodology is being developed. The focus of this technology is to prevent detection and/or identification of those elements of fixed installations critical to combat survival and capability. Camouflage of fixed-installations received increased emphasis with the participation of USAWES in two NATO groups—the Special Group of Experts on Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception and the Military Agency for Standardization of Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception. A large-scale field experiment was initiated in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to develop and evaluate new concepts and material for defeating thermal surveillance and target acquisition systems. Baseline data acquisition and site and materiel selection have been accomplished to date.

Research is underway to improve the Army capability in forecasting hydrologic conditions on the battlefield. A coordinated Army hydrology program plan of research was prepared and a workshop was conducted to evaluate existing capabilities for using radar and weather satellite data. Potential applications of this data under battlefield conditions were identified. Guidelines for groundwater intelligence products in arid regions were developed and a contract was let for development of an improved steamflow prediction capability.

Techniques are being developed for predicting cratering, ground shock, and fallout effects of tactical nuclear weapons and the vulnerability of targets to these threats. Research on effects of explosions on earth and rock-fill dams has produced a methodology for predicting damage to four different types of dams. Tests were conducted to determine ground shock (stress and motion) delivered to buried structures as a function of explosive charge/structure depth and range. Significant progress was made in the verification of a method to simulate radiation fallout from cratering nuclear weapons.

Methods to predict the response of structural targets to low yield nuclear weapons are being developed with supplementary funding from the Defense Nuclear Agency. Three major field tests were completed during the fiscal year: tests simulating overpressure environments from low yield nuclear weapons were conducted at Fort Polk, Louisiana; height-of-burst tests were conducted at the Defense Research Establishment, Suffield, Alberta, Canada; and an earth penetrator simulation test was con-


ducted at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. Data from these tests have been used to develop a calculational model for vulnerability predictions of shallow-buried structural targets.

The Concepts Analysis Agency requested USAWES to evaluate the survival of very hard field fortifications. The evaluation was to establish if a fixed, fortified, fighting line would be effective and cost less than defensive positions using mechanized forces for defending Europe. Designs of very hard fighting positions were analyzed. To accomplish the analysis, a computer program was developed.

The Engineer Topographic Laboratories completed a preliminary design of the quick response multicolor print system for map reproduction (QRMP). The QRMP employs the dry xerography process to provide multicolor maps up to 24 x 30 inches in size. Studies completed during the fiscal year indicate that paper handling and registration problems can be solved by using a single station multiple pass approach to QRMP operation.

Ballistic Missile Defense

The Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program maintains the superiority of United States BMD technology and is the only strategic effort designed to keep the U.S. ready to develop and deploy an active defense against missile attack. The program is structured to be consistent with all current arms control negotiations, and the BMD Program Office periodically participates in reviews of the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The 1978 review, held in October and November, resulted in no changes to the treaty.

In fiscal year 1979, the BMD program was authorized 65 military and 421 civilian spaces. Funding totaled $315.1 million and included $113.5 million for the Advanced Technology program, $114 million for the Systems Technology program, and 87.6 million for the Kwajalein Missile Range.

The Advanced Technology program is directed toward advanced development and evaluation through field tests of component and BMD subsystem technology, including decoy discrimination, data processing, radar, and optics.

The more advanced technological activity underway in fiscal year 1979 is the Designating Optical Tracker program. This program is a five-flight program to provide data on the capability of long wave length infrared sensors to perform the BMD generic functions of designation and track under realistic engagement geometric and environmental conditions. The program will obtain long wave length infrared measurements with a sensor de-


ployed above the atmosphere on reentry target complexes. Data analysis and the final report were completed on the first measurement flight which was successfully flown during December 1978. Planning, coordination, and testing were initiated for other flights with different target conditions. A study was also initiated to examine use of designating optical tracker equipment for other programs.

Fiscal year 1979 was the first year of a three-year program designed to establish a valid technology base toward the flight demonstration of an endoatmospheric homing intercept and nonnuclear kill of a typical reentry vehicle. Major efforts were applied to finalizing concept definitions for the most promising endoatmospheric nonnuclear kill system and subsystem, to identifying and continuing or initiating developments of all critical components, to evaluating the direction of these developments through technical analyses and computer simulation efforts, and to structuring integrated ground and flight test plans to identify all hardware and software interfaces and validate both hardware and simulation developments. The program will evolve along a broad technology front, from a definition and analytical phase in fiscal year 1979 to a hardware design finalization and preparation for individual and interacting components ground testing phase in fiscal year 1980.

The Forward Acquisition Sensor System (FASS) program was established in October 1978. In fiscal year 1979, the BMD community was surveyed for talents to assist in concept definition and design of such a system. Teledyne Brown Engineering, Nichols Research, Lincoln Laboratories, and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company were selected to perform the major technical effort. During the reporting period, a state-of-the-art early warning augmentation probe for the launch under attack mission was defined and the system threat was documented. Requirements and configuration for an intelligence probe were also defined.

A study to determine the feasibility of collecting data on BMD targets with a millimeter wave radar at the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Pacific was completed in fiscal year 1979. Results of the study led to a final design for the radar and the beginning of component development and fabrication. Contracts for hardware have been signed with various contractors. The radar is scheduled to be operational in late 1982.

Corba Judy is a shipborne S-band radar signature collection system to provide intelligence data for the U.S. Air Force Foreign


Technology Division and the BMD Advanced Technology Center. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Communications, Command, Control, and Intelligence) initiated the program in August 1975, assigning the U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division responsibility for procurement. The program is jointly funded by the Air Force Systems Command and by the BMD Advanced Technology Center. A Cobra Judy contract was signed with the Raytheon Company in March 1979, the preliminary design review was completed in June, and the critical design review was completed in September 1979. Procurement is now underway. The ship, U.S.S. Observation Island, has been towed to the Maryland Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company for refurbishing and modification.

The Advanced Technology Center particle beam program primarily consists of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Exoatmospheric Neutral Particle Beam Accelerator program and the Austin Research Associates collective in accelerator proof-of-principle experiment known as the auto-resonant accelerator. The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, New Mexico, has made significant advances in ion source development and has nearly completed the facilities necessary to house the accelerator test stand which will be used to test the major components of the neutral particle beam accelerator. Austin Research has made substantial progress in their high gradient accelerator experiment by characterizing the electron beam and identifying the specific cyclotron wave which is required for ion trapping and acceleration. This experiment is scheduled for completion in September 1980.

The primary thrust of the Systems Technology program in fiscal year 1979 continues to be validation of advanced technologies to reduce the risk of incorporating them into a system concept capable of being deployed. An evolutionary system concept for defense of the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and other high value military targets have been formulated. Based on the Site Defense technology progressively upgraded with technology emerging from the Advanced Technology program, it avoids technological obsolescence, reduces system cost, improves system effectiveness, and reduces lead-times for BMD system options responsive to the evolving threat. Optional system concepts considered, updated, and/or undergoing system validation by simulations, experiments, and tests in fiscal year 1979 include the Layered Defense System (LDS), the Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE), the Underlay Experiment,


and the Low Altitude Defense Experiment. Other systems technology efforts involved projections and analyses of threats and analysis of weapons effects.

A three-phase system definition, analysis, and refinement effort ended in fiscal year 1979 for the Layered Defense System (LDS), a system which will be capable of exoatmospheric and endoatmospheric protection against Soviet reentry vehicles and sophisticated multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. Phase I, initiated in 1977, investigated alternative system concepts (mobile, deceptive, and fixed-site overlay and underlay systems) to defend Minuteman silos. Phase II, concept definition, resulted in definition of the system approach. Phase III, preliminary design, developed an LDS baseline design and explored mission alternatives for the system. The preliminary design review was held in March 1979, the LDS Preliminary Design Description Report was published in April, and the System Technology Program, System Implementation Plan was published in June 1979. Analysis of the LDS application, evolving threat, and underlay and overlay system evaluations continues and will serve to update the system design, system implementation plan, and the system validation plan.

Efforts began in fiscal year 1977 on the Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE), a two-phase demonstration to prove the technology associated with the overlay portion of the LDS. The Lockheed Missiles and Space Company received a contract in August 1978 covering Phase I, the demonstration of an interceptor homing in on, and destroying by nonnuclear means, an ICBM reentry vehicle. An option to perform Phase II, a three-flight program to demonstrate the ability of a long-range long-wavelength infrared sensor to perform detection, discrimination, and designation functions, was later deleted from the contract effort and integrated into the forward acquisition program underway in the BMD Advanced Technology program. An experiment design review was held during 19-23 February 1979. The broad ocean area was selected for the flight intercepts to reduce safety problems associated with two-body collisions. The Director of Military Programs recommended approval of fiscal year 1979 site defense military construction, Army, funds for use on construction at the Kwajalein Missile Range in support of the intercept flight. The U.S. Navy approved transfer of a C-3 access stand to the BMD Systems Command for erection and checkout of the interceptor at the Kwajalein Missile Range. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering concurred for the U.S. Air Force to provide fourteen Minuteman I missiles


for the experiment: seven for interceptor components and seven for target delivery. The Space and Missile Systems Organization is to serve as project director for the Air Force portion of the HOE effort. The Lockheed Missiles and Space Company received additional funding to accelerate intercept flight tests by six months and was asked to preserve the ability to accelerate the flight program by twelve months. Fiscal year 1980 funding reductions later resulted in the first accelerated flight being changed back as originally scheduled.

The underlay experiment portion of the LDS consists of upgraded defense components of a more familiar variety such as sprint-like, high-velocity interceptors, coupled with high-technology radars and commercial-type data processing systems. This portion is the culmination of a program which started as the site defense prototype demonstration and was later modified to a technology program exploring and validating key technology issues associated with a terminal BMD system to defend Minuteman silos or other hard targets. The fiscal year 1979 effort included gathering test data on a number of live target tracking missions and evaluation of that data through simulations and analyses. Sixteen live-tracking missions (fourteen targets-of-opportunity and two dedicated targets) were performed during the year to test various aspects of the system or to gather data for future use. The BMD components performed as expected in all missions. Considerable data was obtained from these missions; however, the fact that some of the reentry vehicles and decoys were not placed in tank breakup clutter, as intended, prevented full accomplishment of all objectives. The data obtained from the live-tracking tests, as well as data obtained from hundreds of tests where targets were simulated, was reduced, analyzed, and used to validate available simulations. Using the simulations and further analyses, tentative conclusions were reached relative to the performance of this type of a terminal defense system and to the resolution of the key technical issues associated with its development. Further testing, using several target-of-opportunity missions and two dedicated target missions, is planned to increase confidence in the tentative conclusions drawn from the testing already completed.

The Low Altitude Defense System is a near term technology point defense system employing an inertially guided interceptor, an acquisition radar, and a distributed data processor, all downsized derivatives of the Baseline Terminal Defense System. Currently in the system definition phase initiated in 1977, it is expected to be valuable in defending either the new U.S. Air Force


MX missile system or the earlier silo-based ICMB’s. During fiscal year 1978, several contractors participated in preliminary definition studies for all subsystems. Subsystem and system requirements were further defined and updated in fiscal year 1979. By 30 September 1979 the program plan was in the final stage of preparation for review by top management. The plan calls for the development of pre-prototype hardware to be tested at the Kwajalein Missile Range. Since the system must operate in a severe nuclear environment, the prototype demonstration program is to address nuclear survivability as well as the distributed data processing system, low altitude discrimination, and battle operation.

In 1979, the Systems Technology program effort continued to upgrade terminal defense/underlay components with technology developed in the Advanced Technology program. Included in this effort were such projects as the advanced digital signal processor to increase radar efficiency and versatility; investigation of advanced commercial computer systems and several distributed data processor configurations to increase the computer throughput made necessary by the increasing threat; and the optical adjunct to increase detection range.

A continuing effort in systems technology is the projection of threats and preparation of threat data to serve as a baseline for all BMD studies and system concepts. In fiscal year 1979, system threats were prepared for use in the forward acquisition system, rapid deployment, and air mobile MX studies. The 1979-1986 Threat Projection for Ballistic Missile Defense Studies document was completed and published. This document contains the latest intelligence threat details and projections for the Soviet Union, the Peoples’ Republic of China ICBM’s, and submarine launched ballistic missiles, and is intended for use in all BMD studies and system concept evaluations. Final reviews of the fiscal year 1978 Red/Blue study effort (comparison of Soviet and U.S. BMD capabilities) were conducted, plans were completed for the fiscal year 1979 effort, and funds were provided for its continuation. The Systems Technology Project Office requested the Department of Energy to provide two experimental, threat representative, reentry vehicles. These vehicles, being built by Sandia Laboratories, New Mexico, should be available to the Advance Technology Center for test purposes in fiscal year 1980. Upon receipt of $565,000 from the Electronics System Division, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, the Systems Technology Project Office contracted with Teledyne Brown Engineering for a study entitled ICBM/SLBM Attack Geometry


Simulations. Results of this effort will be incorporated in the Warning Information Correlation Threat Model intended to provide a common threat baseline for all missile warning and defense sensor systems as well as provide data for software development.

A joint Department of Energy/Department of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense Warhead Study was initiated in November 1978. The group conducting the study has completed reviewing the rapid deployment concept and has initiated review of the Low Altitude Defense System. Related efforts completed include investigation of various Soviet attack scenarios for the Minuteman SLBM interdiction attack laydown, the overlay X-ray precursor laydown, and the overlay debris gamma precursor attacks. Other weapon effects accomplishments in fiscal year 1979 included publication of Weapon Effects Engineering Problems and Guidelines, which provides technical information on life cycle hardening design techniques. Also, development of a Critical Issues Chart was initiated to provide a detailed description of known weapon effects problems matched to a system, activity, or experiment.

In fiscal year 1979, the Kwajalein Missile Range, operated by the BMD Systems Command, provided support to numerous agencies. Support of the increasingly complex U.S. Air Force developmental and operational tests of ICBM’s launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, continued. Fourteen of these flights were advantageously used as target-of-opportunity flights in support of the tracking missions of the Army’s underlay experiment. The Kwajalein Missile Range provided extensive base and technical support to the systems technology and test facility on Meck Island during the fourteen targets-of-opportunity and two dedicated target live-tracking missions. Support was also provided for the Army’s successful designating optical tracker missions and for the Army’s optical station on Roi Namur in the Pacific.

On 6 April 1979 the Department of Defense approved a modification to the long-range tracking and instrumentation radar currently supporting defensive and offensive weapon systems development and test programs conducted at Kwajalein Missile Range. By early 1981, the modification will add to the radar a space detection and tracking system capability, operational in both low and high altitude surveillance. In addition to its present mission, the radar will then serve as a contributing space detection and tracking system sensor providing the Space Defense Center with data on new foreign launches, space object


identification, satellite catalog maintenance, and deep space satellite surveillance.

In fiscal year 1979, an ad hoc committee evaluated alternatives to the Kwajalein Atoll for establishing a major test range in the Pacific Ocean. The Analysis of the Relocation of Kwajalein Study determined that the Northern Mariana Islands were a suitable location for a major test range as well as a supplemental range to Kwajalein in support of the of the expanding requirements of the planned MX and TRIDENT II test programs.


Significant developments continued in all major categories of the new generation of Army weapons and equipment. New systems advanced in engineering development as others approached production decision or continued in development. Much attention went to the expeditious product improvement of critical current systems.

The Patriot flight test program continued to be extremely active during the first quarter of fiscal year 1979. In early October 1978 a multiple simultaneous engagement was accomplished utilizing Regular Airborne Guidance Section (RAGS) missiles. The missiles were successfully launched and simultaneously guided in the track-via-missile phase. As stated previously, the first successful modular digital airborne guidance section (MDAGS) missile firing was achieved in late September 1978 at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico. Because of the success of the RAGS program and the advent of the more reliable MDAGS missile, the project manager directed, on 26 October, the cancellation of the remaining RAGS missions. Fire Unit No. 3 was march ordered on 25 November after satisfying all shipment requirements. It was driven to WSMR arriving in El Paso, Texas, on 2 December. Limited climactic tests with Fire Unit No. 4 were completed at the Andover production facility, New Hampshire, and the fire unit was moved to Bedford, New Hampshire, for the physical teardown and evaluation review (PT&ER) which began on 16 October. Fire Unit No. 5 was transported by air in a C-5A from Hanscom Field, Massachusetts, to Holloman AFB, New Mexico, on 27 February 1979 to supplement the tactical equipment already emplaced at WSMR. The equipment was emplaced on 3 March with baseline testing being completed on 16 March. The arrival of Fire Unit No. 4 and the Command and Coordination Set at WSMR in April completed the Patriot battalion configuration for OT II (operational testing). June and July were devoted to preparing for initiation of Army testing.


March order and emplacement exercises and the maintenance enhancement program (MEP) demonstration were conducted.

The Patriot baseline logistics support analysis record (LSAR) was established in October 1978 as the TRADOC/DARCOM review team completed its review of all task packages. The MEP proposal was received on 20 November. A seven-month effort was authorized on 2 October with the full program scheduled for contract coverage in April 1979. A successful MEP demonstration was conducted in July. Formal negotiations on the Patriot initial production facilities (Buy 1) were completed in February. This contract was recommended for award by the Contracts Requirements Review Board and was awarded on 15 March. The contract amount is $57.8 million, and covers the February 1979 through December 1981 effort to establish the Patriot production line. The first in a series of three Patriot weapon system production readiness reviews (PRR) was completed. The review team found no reason to delay the scheduled start of Patriot production. Authority to negotiate the Patriot production program was approved on 28 February 1979. An engineering development contract and procurements ancillary to engineering development are being processed, and proposals for engineering service, Patriot initial production facilities, and longlead critical material were received and evaluated. A Patriot ad hoc working group was established to effect necessary coordination of Department of the Army staff and command activities in support of preparations for a Patriot DSARC III. The first quarterly meeting of the group was held on 15 October 1978.

During the course of fiscal year 1979, operational and developmental testings, as well as joint U.S./European testing of the French/German developed U.S. Roland systems, were completed. The testing of Roland demonstrated that it meets the Army’s all-weather Shorad missile system requirement. Accordingly, in April 1979, the Army recommended that U.S. Roland enter production. DSARC III, held in May, authorized low-rate production only, citing system reliability concerns. The Secretary of Defense directed that a DSARC III-B be held to verify that system reliability would meet requirements, before authorizing full-scale production of U.S. Roland. Procurement of the initial production facilities to manufacture the Roland system in the United States progressed and by the close of the year the Army was ready to begin fabricating low-rate production fire units and missiles. There was substantial controversy this year about the Roland program for fiscal year 1980. The House Armed Services Committee recommended termination of the program, while the


Senate Armed Services Committee later recommended that the program continue and enter production. By the end of the year, the Congressional Joint Authorization Conference resolved that the program continue.

The Divisional Air Defense (DIVAD) Gun is a fast reacting, armored, air defense system mounting either twin 35- or 40-mm. guns with acquisition and search radars. The system will be mounted on an M48A5 tank chassis. The DIVAD continued in a unique development cycle which combined the use of competition, fixed-price contracts, and minimal government management. Management of the contractors was performed primarily by use of the quarterly reviews conducted at each contractor’s plant. In addition to the quarterly reviews, a special program overview was presented to four key Army and OSD managers on 23 July 1979. The project manager’s office concentrated its efforts on preparations for the production phase of the program. The government, independent of the two DIVAD development contractors, awarded a contract for the development of an XM714 fuse for use with either 35- or 40-mm. DIVAD ammunition. The Army also completed several tests to measure lethality of the two candidate rounds.

The General Support Rocket System (GSRS), a free-flight rocket capable of delivering massive, conventional large area coverage munitions, will have the primary mission of counterfire, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), and other interdiction type missions. Because of low technical risks and the urgent need for the weapon, the acquisition cycle was shortened from eighty-four to sixty-three months. In the two years since development started, the two competing contractors have each delivered three systems to the Army. Over a hundred rockets have been flight tested.

The Pershing II (PII), a major modification to the Army’s Pershing IA, will provide much greater range and accuracy. Program activity focused on the initiation of the PII engineering development program. In August 1978, the Secretary of Defense directed the Army to prepare and present a program for the development of an extended range configuration of PII as soon as possible. As a result, the first quarter of fiscal year 1979 was spent in very intense preparation for an ASARC II and DSARC II for an extended range PII. The ASARC II reconvened in early December 1978 to give its final approval to the revised PII program plans. The Army then presented to the DSARC its proposed program for the acquisition of a PII missile system which has a significantly increased range over the currently


fielded PIA missile system. The Deputy Secretary of Defense signed a decision memorandum on 20 February 1979 approving PII engineering development and directing the Army to maintain options for the possible acceleration of the PII’S initial operational capability by as much as sixteen months. Meanwhile, Phase III development of the PII earth penetrating warhead and airburst surface/burst warhead moved forward. Primary contractor activities during the year centered around initiation of missile and ground support equipment design, the conduct of wind tunnel and captive flight testing, and the procurement and fabrication of the working model hardware.

A production contract for 126 electronic identification, friend or foe (IFF) units for the Chaparral launcher was awarded in June 1979. With application of electronic IFF, the Chaparral crew will no longer have to depend solely on visual identification techniques. A production contract for a new smokeless rocket motor for the Chaparral was awarded in September 1979. The smokeless motor virtually eliminates the heavy smoke trail given off by the missile. As the fiscal year closed, planning and preparation activities were underway for two new improvement efforts. These efforts include a forward looking infrared (FLIR) target detection subsystem for the Chaparral launcher and a new guidance unit for the missile based on passive optical scanning technology (POST).

Product improvement testing (PIVT) for the Improved Hawk was successfully completed for the first four Hawk product improvement programs (PIP’s). In addition to the PIVT, which was a hardware test, the software required to field the improvements was successfully tested. The root cause analysis of the Tracker Adjunct System (TAS), PIP was completed during the year and activities associated with a fiscal year 1980 procurement are proceeding. Based upon successful completion of 960 hours of RAM testing, a production contract was awarded for the RAM/EMCON PIP in May 1979. A program to upgrade the missile performance in situations where electronic countermeasures are used was initiated. The development contract was awarded in December 1978. Two new PIP’s were submitted and technically approved during the fiscal year but have not been funded. They are Improved Hawk Mobility and the Two Position Pintle Nozzle Motor. Production contracts for ground support equipment and missiles were awarded in excess of $133.0 million. The PIP production procurements mentioned earlier brought this total to approximately $167.5 million. Work on a major high and medium air defense study (HIMADS) was continued during 1978


and 1979. The purpose of the study is twofold: (1) to determine the best method of Patriot/Hawk interoperability after deployment of Patriot in the early 1980’s, and (2) to determine if the Hawk system in some form should remain in the active Army inventory indefinitely after Patriot is fielded.

The Stinger, a low altitude air defense missile system is man-portable and shoulder-fired. It homes in on the heat emitted by either jet or propellor driven aircraft. Initial production continued during the year. The fiscal year 1979 engineering service’s contract and the second production contract were awarded in February and April 1979, respectively, and a contract for production of IFF interrogators was awarded in March. Engineering development of Stinger/POST continued. The technical difficulties encountered in the incorporation of microprocessor signal processing and with the packaging and positioning of the electronics within weight and space limitations were solved. Efforts continue by the contractor in verifying the design of the POST guidance assembly and in producing the first POST flight vehicles for the contractor flight tests.

Hellfire began the third year of its sixty-three month full-scale engineering development program and the flight test phase achieved notable success. In November 1978, the Army selected the Martin-Marietta laser seeker for integration with the missile. Planning began for an engineering development program for an imaging infrared (fire and forget) seeker to complement the laser seeker in the Hellfire system. A baseline cost estimate was completed and a cost and operational effectiveness analysis and necessary program documentation were begun.

The Viper antiarmor rocket system is a one-shot, shoulder-fired, throw-away weapon that is issued as a round of ammunition, like a grenade. It is being developed to replace the current light antitank weapon (LAW) as the antiarmor weapon for the individual soldier. Safety problems in developmental testing have led to the redesign of certain components and the postponement of planned fielding for a year.

The TRADOC special study group for close combat antiarmor weapons systems early in the year recommended to the Vice Chief of Staff and the Under Secretary of the Army that a new competitive development program for a supersonic laser beamrider antiarmor missile be initiated. The recommendation was denied due to cost problems and the commitment by OSD for cooperative development programs with our European allies. In lieu of a new development program, a major product improvement effort for the TOW (tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-


guided) antiarmor system was approved. Also, continued production of the improved TOW missile was approved. The medium range antiarmor system (Dragon) was also involved in the discussions with the European allies. TRADOC and DARCOM were asked to study the Dragon system and to recommend a course of action to correct any problems.

Revised threat estimates indicated that the TOW system would become less effective as newer Soviet tanks were fielded and as the likelihood increased that battlefield smoke and electro-optical countermeasures (EOCM) would be employed against antiarmor systems. To increase TOW system lethality and to harden the system against EOCM, the Army began a program to develop improved warheads and modifications to the guidance system and command link.

The advanced attack helicopter (AAH) continued in full-scale engineering development during 1979. The initial prototype target acquisition designation system (TADS) and pilot night vision systems (PNVS) were delivered by Martin-Marietta and Northrop for use in system integration and check-out. The two Phase I flight prototype helicopters were returned to flight status after modifications were completed to bring them to Phase II configuration. The first successful airborne firing of a Hellfire ballistic missile from the AAH took place on 3 March 1979. This and other successful ballistic launches led to the first guided Hellfire launch from the AAH on 18 September 1979. The AAH development effort was restructured in July 1979 to consolidate all remaining operational testing at the end of the program. Plans to award a production contract in December 1980 were delayed one year.

In 1976, ASARC III determined that the UH-60A Black Hawk was ready for production and type classification standard and that because there were no operational issues, operational testing (OT) III was not necessary. As a result, the peculiar ground support equipment (PGSE), the test measurement and diagnostic equipment (TMDE), and certain mission-flexibility kits were developed. A force development test and experimentation (FDTE) on the UH-60A began at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on 11 June 1979. Due to a failure of a primary hydraulic servo, all aircraft were grounded until 20 August when, after corrective changes were made, the FDTE resumed. The grounding prevented achieving initial operating capability (IOC) for the UH-60A by the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. The IOC and the ASARC IIIA dates were both rescheduled to October and November 1979, respectively. Action was taken in July 1979 to


direct the completion of qualification testing and submission of type classification recommendations by July 1980.

The CH-47 modernization program continued ahead of schedule and within contract milestone costs. During 1979, three YCH-47D modernized aircraft successfully completed their initial flights and are now ready to begin extensive government flight testing in early 1980. Other accomplishments during the year included: final qualification of the fiber glass rotor blades; completion of forward and aft transmission endurance tests; completion of engine and auxiliary power unit qualification tests and award of the engineering and planning for production contract to Boeing Vertol Company.

The COBRA/TOW continued its modernization program through phased product improvements to the AH-1. Contracts were let for purchase of 66 new AH-1S production models and for conversion of 137 AH-1G’s to AH-1S’s with a twenty millimeter cannon and a wing stores management subsystem being the major improvements. Full scale engineering development continued on a fire control subsystem, the major modernization of the AH-1.

In fiscal year 1979, the XMI program completed developmental and operational testing II (DT/OT II), underwent Army and Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC/DSARC) III reviews, initiated full scale engineer development (FSED) testing, and initiated planning for the conduct in fiscal years 1980-81 of DT/OT III and contractor tests using low rate initial production (LRIP) XMI’s and/or XMI production components. Significant shortfalls were disclosed in mission reliability and power train durability. Both the ASARC and DSARC II I reviews of March and April, respectively, directed and/or recommended further testing. The ASARC III recommended LRIP of 110 tanks used to support DT/OT III testing. The Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the 110 tank LRIP and placed constraints on second and subsequent year production.

The U.S. 120-mm. gun development and production effort was expedited by Dr. Perry, USDRE, and the licensing agreement for the United States development of the system was signed by the U.S. Army and the German developer, Rheinmetall, in February 1979. The U.S. 120-mm. gun program started on 8 March 1979. On 23 March the ASARC approved a revised program leading to first production delivery of a 120-mm. gun XMI tank in August 1985. This represents a one-year slip in the planned production date due to a delay in obtaining a satisfactory license agreement. In June 1979, the Army was directed by the Secretary


of Defense to continue planning for first production delivery of a 120-mm. gun XMI tank in August 1984 as originally scheduled. In August 1979, the 120-mm. gun XMI tank was designated the XMIE1.

Follow-on evaluation of the medium towed 155-mm. howitzer, M198 was conducted with artillery and marine units at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, from October 1978 through February 1979. Evaluation results confirmed that the M198 met all design and test requirements. Force development test and experimentation was conducted at Fort Bragg in October 1978 to determine the feasibility of employing the M198 in direct support of light infantry operations. Results confirmed the suitability of the M198 for use in the direct support role. Production validation testing began in August 1979 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of October 1979. Initial operational capability was achieved in April 1979. The initial production of nineteen howitzers was produced in-house except for the fire control portion. For follow-on M198 howitzer production, a competitive contract was awarded for the M39 carriage.

Eight Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)/Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV) prototypes were fabricated and delivered to the Army for evaluation. The 25-mm. gun competition was completed and Hughes Helicopter received the winning cannon contract. Prototype qualification testing by the government was initiated at the conclusion of contractor testing. OT II training began in the summer of 1979. The IFV/CFV prototypes have a total of 7,000 miles on them, and 19,715 25-mm. rounds have been fired along with 9 TOW missiles.

The General Support Rocket System (GSRS) carrier vehicle is a fully-tracked, self-propelled weapons platform. It features a man-rated cab that permits completion of an entire fire mission from inside the cab. Simplicity of operation and maintenance have been designed into the vehicle. Having maximum component commonality with IFV simplifies logistics, reduces training requirements, minimizes vehicle cost, and gives maximum system reliability. The complete system has undergone firing, mobility, and endurance testing.

When the Improved TOW Vehicle (ITV) was officially adopted for Army use in June 1978, a conservative production start-up was directed to assure that reliability problems found during development and operational testing had been corrected. Initial production tests (IPT) were started at the Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in March and continued through June. Concurrently, additional user testing and follow-on evaluation were conducted


at Fort Polk, Louisiana, during April and May 1979. In both series of tests, the ITV met or exceeded all performance requirements. Full production of the remaining vehicles under contract was authorized at a program review on 6 July 1979, and on 29 July the Army exercised a contract option for an additional quantity of ITV’s.

The Copperhead project completed development test firing in September. The final design configuration was established and the technical data package suitable for reproduction was completed. Operational test II was conducted between March-June 1979. Efforts continued in establishing the initial production line at the prime contractor’s plant in Orlando, Florida. The Army Systems Acquisition Review Committee (ASARC) met in September and recommended that the Copperhead guided projectile enter production beginning in fiscal year 1980.

The advanced development systems of the Standoff Target Acquisition System (SOTAS), two of which are now in Europe, performed well in four exercises. The winter weather encountered in REFORGER 79 confirmed the need for an additional adverse weather capability. The major contracts for the engineering development program were let during the year. Contracts for the development of the modular integrated communications navigation system (MICNS); of the airborne electronic subsystem, the ground stations, and the ground positioning subsystems; and of the design, modification and testing of the EH-60B Black Hawk variant were signed in May, June, and September 1979, respectively. In recognition of budgetary contraints, the Army reduced the procurement objective to those sets necessary to support the active force structure. The previous profile, which was approved at DSARC II in August 1978, had been based on supporting both active and reserve units.

Progress continued in the growth of high energy laser technology for potential Army missions. Technological advancement was made in the formulation, evaluation, laboratory construction, and testing of new laser devices. The examination of existing propagation and laser damage mechanisms continued. Progress was made in the further development of experimental chemical lasers, repetitively pulsed electric discharge lasers, and fire control. Chemical laser efforts were oriented toward advancements in components and electric discharge laser efforts were concerned with development of power supplies and conditioning equipment.

During the fiscal year, administrative and contractual arrangements were made to conduct engineering development of


a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) system. A cost-plus-incentive fee contract was awarded to Lockheed Missiles and Space Company in August for the full-scale engineering development of an RPV system. Contract value is $101.1 million over a period of forty-three months.

The XM736 persistent nerve agent (VX) binary projectile is an artillery munition developed by the Army in an effort to upgrade the U.S. deterrent/retaliatory warfare capability. The binary concept uses two nontoxic chemical components which are separated until the projectile is fired. Setback forces from initial firing, forward inertia, and spinning on the way to the target mixes the two components to form an active nerve agent which is distributed over the target. Presidential and congressional approval for construction of production facilities and subsequent production has not yet been obtained. Early functioning and leakage problems encountered during the safety phase of DT II were resolved during the fiscal year. Design modifications were made to the base plate and the rear chemical canister. The safety phase of DT II was successfully completed and a safety release to initiate OT II was issued.

The Dragon Night Tracker (AN/TAS-5) was type classified as standard and entered full-scale production. Initial production of the night sight for the TOW missile system and the tank thermal sight were made. These passive infrared sights provide the basic systems with the capacity to attack enemy tanks at night. The Army initiated a program to incorporate some improved components into the five-ton truck in 1971. Multiyear procurement of the improved truck was to begin in 1978. However, technical problems delayed the program for over a year. The House Appropriations Committee (HAC) learned of the delay and directed an investigation of the Army’s total five-ton truck program. In February 1979, the report stated that the Army’s requirements were overstated and that the technical improvements were not worth the additional cost. In June, the HAC directed the Army to terminate the improvement program, buy current production model trucks, and restudy its requirements. The Army ended its improvement program and bought current model trucks with fiscal year 1978 funds.

A major Army mission is to ensure the adequate flow of supplies and materiel to the various field elements deployed worldwide. As a part of the total resupply system, a program was begun in December 1974 to achieve a high-speed, amphibious, air cushion vehicle lighter capability. The prototype Lighter, Air Cushion Vehicle, thirty-ton (LACV-30) was procured in March 1975, and


subjected to intensive development and operational testing from October 1976 to January 1978. The LACV-30 is an air cushion vehicle craft that travels over water, beaches, soft or firm ground, snow or ice at speeds of up to fifty miles per hour. The craft has an open deck space with a total payload capacity of thirty tons. An Army executive meeting to review the program was held on 15 January 1979 with decisions made to accept the LACV-30 as a standard Army item, begin procurement of production items, and conduct a follow-on evaluation test with the initial four craft produced. A program was conducted on the LACV-30 to test proposed improvements to the craft prior to production. A contract for initial procurement of four LACV-30’s with options for follow-on buys of eight more craft, was awarded to Bell Aerospace Textron in September 1979.   

The artillery versions of the family of scatterable mines (FASCAM), both antitank and antipersonnel, are in full production. Routine testing is being done before full fielding in fiscal year 1980. The Ground Emplaced Mine Scattering System (GEMSS) completed successful user and development tests. The modular pack mine system (MOPMS) is in the final stage of development and full-scale prototypes have been built. The mine, for delivery by high performance aircraft (GATOR), made technical advancement in its final stages of development. This R&D program is under the Air Force lead for Army, Navy, and Air Force joint use.

The Defense Advance Projects Research Agency (DAPRA)/Army/Air Force new antitank concept program known as Assault Breaker, couples an Air Force airborne target acquisition/tracking/command guidance system with an Army ground tactical fire control center and surface-to-surface missile system containing terminally guided submunitions. It is to be used against second echelon, long-range moving enemy armor concentrations. This program is not for use in the battle area as it does not distinguish between friendly and enemy tanks. A joint DAPRA, Army, and Air Force steering group was formed to provide guidance throughout the ongoing technology demonstration. A joint executive committee, chaired by the USDRE with Army participation, has been organized to establish policy for the Assault Breaker program. The U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM) is the agent for Army participation in the technology investigations, and a mission element need statement (MENS) describing the need for a Corps Support Weapons System (CSWS), which envisions a nuclear and nonnuclear interdiction weapon to provide improvements over Lance, was prepared by TRADOC. A total


of $9.2 million has been approved for fiscal year 1980: $3.0 million to set up a project manager’s office and associated requirements, and $6.2 million for including the Lance T22 missile in the technology demonstration.

The Armored Combat Vehicle Technology (ACVT) program is designed to provide information to the CSA and the Marine Corps Commandant that will measure the battlefield value of lightweight combat vehicles and medium caliber automatic cannon. The aim of 75-mm. developments in the fiscal year was to provide accurate medium caliber automatic gun systems for use on the high mobility/agility (HIMAG) and high survivability test vehicle-lightweight (HSTV-L) test-bed vehicles, which are the principal data generators for the ACVT programs. The major accomplishments in fiscal year 1979 were the development of high-performance 75-mm. KE and HE ammunition and the development of a working automatic gun mechanism, which included the introduction of a new high-strength steel. The major problem was the slow feeders.

Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability (RSI)

Over the past year, the Army’s RSI efforts have led to the publication of both policy and procedural guidance, priorities, further efforts for implementing the NATO Long-Term Defense Program (LTDP), and hardware initiatives. Army policy and responsibilities for RSI were promulgated with the publication of AR 34-2, Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability. Basic Army policy for RSI states:

The U.S. Army will actively seek the rationalization, standardization, and interoperability (RSI) of doctrine, weapons systems, logistics, equipment, and procedures within NATO on a priority basis to conserve resources and release the combined combat capability of U.S., NATO, and ABCA forces.

RSI is the means to help strengthen alliance capabilities through the use of combined and integrated alliance resources, rather than the use of strictly national resources. To this end, rationalization of doctrine, requirements, tactics, and procedures is essential for successful long-term alliance programs and initiatives. Maximum benefit will be achieved through multi-national cooperation.

AR 34-1, U.S. Army Participation in International Military RSI Programs, is the procedural complement to AR 34-2. It specifies action/administrative agent assignments, program orientations, and the procedural mechanisms for ensuring that United States and U.S. Army interests are properly represented.

On 5 April 1979, the Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, signed  


a letter titled, Army Priorities for RSI. This letter designated the Army’s general priorities for RSI, which are: implementation of the NATO Long-Term Defense Program (LTDP); support of the OSD/JCS high-priority areas; standardization of doctrine, requirements, and procedures; and interoperability and standardization of weapons systems and equipment. Additionally, specific near-term priority actions for Army staff and major command emphasis were designated.

In accordance with guidance promulgated by the draft OSD 1981-85 Consolidated Guidance, LTDP actions are treated by the Army as tantamount to mandatory programming guidance. LTDP actions were, with very few exceptions, programmed at the basic level. Efforts continue to implement those items approved for action, and to refine those measures requiring clarification of further study prior to implementation. Of the 123 approved LTDP actions, 21 require action by the Army. At U.S. urging, the LTDP was addressed as a separate book to the NATO Defense Planning Questionnaire (DPQ) for 1979. This was done in order to maintain the identity of the LTDP, as well as provide a simpler mechanism for identifying national progress in implementing measures. Both cost and quantity data were provided by the U.S.

In the OSD/JCS high-priority areas, actions are underway to convert the various fixed-plan and transportable wideband systems into a single system with substantial support of our survival requirements. NATO has recently agreed to install automatic digital network (AUTODIN) terminals at selected NATO subscriber locations. In addition, the use of the NATO teletype automatic relay system (TARES) by the U.S. Air Force will result in a fully adequate, highly survivable record communications system.

NATO countries have been invited to provide representatives to the U.S. Test Integration Working Group (TIWG) for the SINCGARS-V radio system. Negotiations have been conducted with Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the terms and conditions under which foreign candidate radios could be offered to meet the SINCGARS requirement. All three nations plan to offer candidate systems.

With the approval of the DARCOM-proposed ammunition interoperability plan as the Army’s plan on 12 July 1979, a framework has been established for the generation of technical data relating to the interoperability of ammunition between national weaponry on a NATO-wide basis. This plan, in addition to pro-


viding a cohesive framework, also establishes general priorities and approaches for pursuing further efforts.

For the past year, the Army has been engaged in an extensive program to establish the interoperability of ammunition, both in training and in combat, with our NATO allies. This program was directed by DARCOM in response to the priority placed on ammunition interoperability by, OSD, JCS, NATO, and in support of USAREUR interoperability initiatives.

In 1977, USAREUR requested that the Department of the Army grant permission for U.S. units to fire foreign ammunition during training, under the provisions of NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGS) (2838-2857) on ammunition interoperability, in order to foster interoperability and build confidence in the stockpiles of other nations. The benefits of this proposal were recognized, but permission could not be granted. Support for a similar effort by USAREUR was provided by OSD, JCS, and NATO in their designation of the five high-priority areas for NATO standardization and interoperability. Interchangeable ammunition is the third priority item.

DARCOM embarked upon a certification program, concentrating on the achievement of bilateral agreements with Central European countries regarding 155-mm., 175-mm., and 8” artillery ammunition; 105-mm. tank gun ammunition; and 81-mm. and 4.2” mortar ammunition. This effort has been a major task. Initially, the program of work was structured to satisfy the Commander in Chief, USA, Europe (CINCUSAREUR), requirement for training. The methodology for certification was implemented through a series of working meetings with representatives from Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Norway. Signed bilateral Memorandums of Agreement with each country on the complete round interchange of artillery, tank gun, and mortar ammunition, which constituted safety certification for firing in training, were the result of these meetings. These agreements also provided for exchange of malfunction data and changes to the technical data package (TDP). An additional benefit of this exercise is that not only is ammunition being certified as safe to fire, but data is being generated which allows that ammunition to be fired more accurately.

In mid-1979, DARCOM/ARRADCOM prepared and submitted to the Department of the Army an Army ammunition interoperability plan (AAIP), providing a framework for extending these efforts to other calibers and other nations. This plan establishes objectives, an approach, and priorities for a broad, ongoing effort. The result of this program will be the


ability of U.S. units to safely and accurately employ nearly all varieties of allied ammunition, with the exceptions clearly delineated. Formal approval was granted on 12 July 1979. The AAIP is essentially a developer’s plan, leading to the generation of technical information. An equally important part of the effort is the distribution and use of that information. On 27 July 1979, the Department of the Army International Rationalization Office (DAIRO) hosted an Ammunition Interoperability Working Conference in the Pentagon to clarify and discuss plans for implementing this information. Representatives of involved and interested Army staff agencies and major commands were invited. Future developmental efforts, training and service school programs of instruction (POI) revision, and the potential for firing allied ammunition during CONUS training were among the subjects discussed. The most contentious of the potential acquisition and distribution of these issues was that of allied ammunition for CONUS training. Acquisition, storage, and distribution problems were considered. In light of the essentially identical physical characteristics of allied ammunition to U.S. munitions, the problems envisioned did not seem to be offset by training benefits and the question was dropped.

The U.S. and a number of its NATO allies have signed Memorandums of Agreement relating to various types of ammunition. Other agreements are under consideration. Also exchange firings with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) forces have been conducted on the 203-mm. and 155-mm. howitzers.

With the initiation of exchange firings in USAREUR, pressure began building with NATO to embark on a similar effort throughout the Alliance. In 1978, Commander, Northern Army Group, Central Europe (COMNORTHAG), directed units in the northern region to pursue a program of ammunition interchange during training. Efforts had already been started within the Conference of National Armaments Directors Panel AC/225, Panel IV (Surface-to-Surface Artillery), to prepare a plan for the determination of ammunition interoperability NATO-wide. This effort was initiated and carried by the U.S.

The draft NATO Ammunition Interoperability plan is patterned after the U.S. Army plan with those modifications felt necessary for NATO adaptation. Its objectives are to determine the interchangeability status, maintain existing interchangeability, identify alternatives if noninterchangeable, assure future interoperability, document agreements, disseminate information, expand the scope of STANAG’s, and enable troop firing exercises. The methodology proposed—making interoperability deter-


minations for NATO—is essentially the same as that discussed for the Army. It should be noted that, while efforts, so far, have centered on the complete-round interchange of ammunition for training, the potential need for component fuse, projectile, and prop charge interchangeability has been recognized. DARCOM/ ARRADCOM, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM), has been requested to begin a low-key program to determine the extent of component interchangeability. We do not envision mixed firings during peacetime, but such information would be disseminated for use during conflict. The approach is a “form, fit, function” one, in keeping with the fact that most current European components are either built to U.S. specifications, or outgrowths of U.S. products.

With one exception, the approach for combat firings is the same as that for peacetime. From the combat standpoint, the ultimate goal of this plan is to permit the safe and accurate firing of mixed components of various national origins. This would allow the use of a U.S. fuse with a German projectile and United Kingdom prop charges, for example.

Priorities proposed for NATO adoption reflect the same general priorities as those of the U.S. bilateral efforts. Prioritization will be by type, within family, and by country. While we have made significant progress, the NATO ammunition interoperability plan is still a draft, and has not yet been formally accepted by NATO. The plan was briefed to the Conference of National Armaments Directors Panel AC/225, Panel IV, in November, and received their endorsement. During the Military Agency for Standardization meeting in November 1979, the draft allied Ordnance Publication (AOP), based on the data contained in the fire control matrices, was presented. The need for the development of training support and training aid materiel has been considered. Due to the physical similarities between U.S. and allied ammunition currently certified, there appears to be no need for such material at this time. In the few instances where different nomenclatures/markings occur, as with German and Norwegian ammunition, appropriate field manuals will be annotated to provide the requisite information. Should ammunition be certified in the future which possesses significantly different identification or physical characteristics, appropriate graphic training aids (GTA) cards or training extension course (TEC) lessons will be developed.

The development of a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) system for target acquisition and designation is a high-priority project within the Army. A U.S./United Kingdom Memorandum of Un-


derstanding has been consummated, providing for an exchange of information on RPV’s with a view toward ensuring interoperability. Working groups have been established to explore specific areas of interest.

The Stand-Off Target Acquisition System (SOTAS) has been successfully demonstrated to several NATO countries, and the engineering development phase has been structured to further interoperability goals. The deployment of two interim systems has further demonstrated SOTAS’ capabilities in a field environment. Several NATO nations have expressed interest, though none have specific requirements. The Army’s laser target designator (LTD) and ground laser locator designator (GLLD) are compatible with all U.S. laser-guided munitions. Additionally, all laser designators have been designed in compliance with NATO STANAG 3733, ensuring interoperability within NATO. Interoperability between the LTD and the United Kingdom laser ranger and marked target seeker has been demonstrated.

The Army continued to participate in the Conference of National Armaments Directors Group on material standardization. This group is developing plans for improving STANAG in the area of assemblies, components, spare parts, and materials.

The bilateral staff talk program, an important mechanism for increasing doctrinal compatibility between U.S. and NATO countries, continued with strong support from all participants. Army staff talks between the U.S. and Germany, which began in 1975, went into their sixth and seventh formal meetings in March and September 1979, respectively. They resulted in the signing of two more concept papers in March 1979: No. 10, Nuclear-Biological-Chemical Defense, and No. 11, Night Operations. This brought the total of agreed concept papers to eleven and left seven more in combined staffing preparation. A common requirements document for remotely piloted vehicles was signed with German representatives in May, and a four nation Memorandum of Understanding for a field artillery multilauncher rocket system gained United States, Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom, and French signatures in June 1979. A common requirements document for a terminally guided warhead to this system was also signed by U.S./Germany representatives. Agreement was reached to standardize test procedures; to harmonize U.S./German symbology and graphics; and to enhance the interoperability of the U.S. tactical operations system (TOS) and the German HEROS system for command and control, and the U.S. TACFIRE and the German ADLER artillery fire control system.


Bilateral staff talks between the U.S. and the United Kingdom had begun in fiscal year 1978. They continued with a third formal meeting during late February-early March 1979. The exploration of doctrinal similarities and differences continued. A joint concept for the Warsaw Pact threat was updated in March, and work is in progress toward joint concepts for armor force operations beyond 1990, and science and technology. The parties also exchanged views on division reorganization projects and sought agreement on a process to harmonize equipment requirements. A fourth meeting is scheduled for October 1979.

The Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. and French Armies, in January 1979, agreed to explore the possibility of staff talks in the combat development field. The first formal talks were held in September 1979. They included a mutual recognition that advancing Soviet technology posed a great challenge to the Western Alliance as well as a recognition that differing systems, structures, and concepts existed based on the two nation’s differing alliance roles—the U.S., immediate engagement of attacking forces; and France, a strategic reserve with a specific counterattack mission. Shared concern with respect to several broad subjects was affirmed, including doctrine, training, and equipment for military operations in large urban centers. Questions of technological impact on roles of the tank and of other major systems were discussed.

With regard to hardware, the Army continued to support greater cooperation with our European and worldwide allies on research, development, testing, and evaluation; dual production; and cooperative doctrinal development.

A supplement to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) on night vision systems was completed which provided for the transfer of technology of all parts of the U.S. common module infrared sight system. This transfer will let the FRG manufacture these parts for use in configurations tailored to German requirements. Another cooperative effort with the FRG was the second realistic battlefield sensor test conducted at Grafenwoehr, Germany. These tests were conducted to determine the effects of artillery caused obscurants (dust and smoke) on current and planned electro-optic sensors.

A preliminary study, concerned with the purchase of German manufactured administrative and materiel handling vehicles, was conducted in 1976 and the program was approved in January 1978. The approval to expand this program to include vehicles that are not in use or planned for use by the FRG (provided the additional types of vehicles are interoperable with vehicles used


by the FRG forces) was granted in December 1978. The Army was appointed executive agent for the FRG program and will purchase for the Army and Air Force. Because of potential logistical problems, the Air Force and Army agreed to buy limited quantities (Army, 125 vehicles; Air Force, 100 vehicles) during fiscal year 1978. Basic ordering agreements for the service requirements were signed in May and deliveries began in October 1978. The Army procurement for fiscal year 1979 was 243 vehicles at a cost of $1.8 million.

The Army continued to provide both financial and manpower support to the international test control commisssion (TCC) during the year. Technical testing on the candidate weapon systems (both ammunition and weapons), which began in April 1977, was completed in July 1979. It was conducted at four test sites: Cold Meece, United Kingdom, Meppen, Federal Republic of Germany; Bourges, France; and Eglin AFB, United States. The one-year military troop test on the candidate weapon systems was completed 11 May 1979. This test involved troops from six different nations, speaking four different languages, firing all candidate weapon systems through a series of firing exercises. The TCC, with the assistance and advice of representatives from the eleven participating nations, is presently analyzing test data from all test sites.

But not all NATO RSI programs were successful. Attempts to obtain United Kingdom acceptance of the AGT 1500 turbine engine for their MBT 80 tanks were turned down. Instead, the United Kingdom opted for 1,500 h.p. diesel engines from Rolls Royce. Negotiations with the Netherlands to coproduce XMI’s were also unsuccessful. The Netherlands opted for a similar arrangement with General Electric for the Leopard II. Other ongoing RSI efforts include a NATO committee which is developing standard requirements for tank track and the 120-mm. gun program.

The fiscal year 1980 Memorandums of Understanding between the Japanese Defense Agency and the United States Department of Defense, and the implementing agreement between the Japanese Defense Agency Hawk project manager (PM) and the USA Hawk PM were signed in May 1979. The Memorandum of Understanding authorizes coproduction in Japan of improved Hawk modification kits to convert basic Hawk assets to the improved configuration and for production of major items including the missile.



Go to:

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

Return to Table of Contents

Search CMH Online
Last updated 17 September 2004