Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1984
Research, Development, and Acquisition
The Army's extensive modernization program reaped the benefit of the research and development of the 1970s and produced equipment in the procurement stage at economically efficient production rates. Even as Army modernization gained momentum, Army planners understood that the Soviet Union not only outnumbered American forces in personnel and equipment, but also was rapidly overcoming the technological advantages of U.S. weapon systems. In short, the USSR was producing sophisticated quality weapons in quantity. This development, coupled with the Army doctrine espoused in FM 100-5 that emphasized the critical need to win a Central European engagement against heavy Soviet forces, determined that the modernization program would continue to concentrate on developing and upgrading weapon systems for Division 86 units. The likelihood of becoming involved in low intensity conflicts required the Army to have a quick response capability, but the lack of strategic lift capability hindered rapid deployment of ground troops. Strategic lift was insufficient for even the "lightest of the light," the 82d Airborne Division, to deploy rapidly enough to meet its requirements. In response, Army planners designed the light division to fit into the current lift capability and to fulfill the low-intensity conflict role. The modernization program, however, remained focused on the doctrinal concept of Central European warfare. While the Army steadily increased development of new materiel or upgrading and converting of older models for the use of light divisions, it maintained emphasis on heavy force modernization during FY 84. This chapter discusses the major actions and weapon systems in the Army's research, development, and acquisition program as the Army leadership balanced NATO responsibilities against the light division initiative.
The Army based its initial approved RDTE program on the President's budget as adjusted by Congress up to 30 September 1983. In addition to amounts withheld in anticipation of congres-
sional action, other deferrals totaled $493.2 million and included $61.5 million for TRACE (total risk assessing cost estimates), $109.1 million for new starts, $310.5 million based on Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USDRE) Format Is, and $12.1 million for other individual programs. The USDRE also withheld funds for Patriot, the antitactical missile, 155-mm. howitzer improvements, the Army joint surveillance/target attack radar system, division air defense command and control, and joint tactical communications. Besides deferring funds, the USDRE identified twenty-six specific program elements as being of "USDRE interest"-funds for these programs could not be shifted without prior written approval from OUSDRE.
During the first quarter of FY 84, the Army funded programs under a Continuing Resolution Authority, which was adequate to support all released programs. The Army's RDTE appropriation, finally enacted on 8 December 1983, was $4.199 billion ($593 million short of the requested $4.792 billion). The following major congressional reductions, eliminations, and increases were contained within the appropriations bill. (See Table 12.)
TABLE 12 - REDUCTIONS
|BMD Systems Technology
|Terminally Guided Projectile
|Advanced Software Technology
|Military Computer Family
|Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System
|155-mm. Howitzer Improvements
|Industrial Base/Vaccine and Drugs
|Joint Service Vertical Lift Aircraft
|Advanced Rocket Control System
|Light Armored Vehicle
|Meteorological Equipment Development
|Education and Training
|Automatic Test Support System
|TRADOC Studies and Analysis
TABLE 12 - REDUCTIONS-Continued
|Fighting Vehicle Systems
|Liquid Propellant Guns/Ammunition
|Joint Tactical Communications
|Manufacturing Methods and Technology
In addition to congressionally approved reprogramming of $74 million, the Army reprogrammed $111.5 million in 170 program elements. As a result, the FY 84 program, by 30 September 1984, was $4.273 billion with obligations of $3.756 billion and outlays of $2.113 billion. The FY83 carryover equaled $266.7 million while $3.9 million of direct funds lapsed at the end of FY 84. Besides direct appropriated funds, the RDTE program contained $935.1 million in reimbursable obligations ($178.1 million FY 83 funds and $757.0 million in FY 84 funds) including orders received from other DOD agencies, non-DOD agencies, and nonfederal sources.
The Army procurement appropriation's FY 84 obligation plan totaled $19.427 billion ($17.737 billion for direct Army procurement and $1.690 billion for reimbursable customer sales) and included all obligations from funds appropriated in FY 82, FY 83, and FY 84 dedicated to the FY 84 program. Actual obligations incurred during FY 84 equaled $17.837 billion ($16.323 billion for direct Army procurement and $1.064 billion for reimbursable customer sales). The lapse of funds for the expiring FY 82 program year was $122.5 million of direct funds, which included approximately $87 million for contingency liabilities, totaled $105.9 million, and of reimbursable funds, which was due to the Army supplying materials from stock that did not require replacement, equaled $16.6 million.
The Army procurement portion of the FY 85 budget request was $21.060 billion, an increase of $3.768 billion over actual FY 84 appropriations. This additional funding will maintain multiyear programs and economic production rates for several selected weapon systems. The requested funding for FY 85 will sustain ammunition reserves, modernize major end items, continue procurement of tactical wheeled vehicles, and improve fielded systems.
The FY 85 aircraft procurement budget submission included $1.290 billion to purchase major end items such as 144 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters as well as long lead time engines and avionics equipment. The Army helicopter improvement program
(AHIP) also received $217.3 million. The missile procurement appropriation enabled the Army to buy 585 Patriot missiles and 50,472 rockets for the multiple launch rocket system. The Army earmarked the weapons and tracked combat vehicles appropriation request for improving combat power by purchasing new items and modifying existing systems. The appropriation for ammunition procurement included $2.192 billion for buying ammunition and $302 million for ammunition production base support. The other procurement category contained $1.536 billion for tactical and support vehicles, $2.927 billion for communications and electronics equipment, and $1.599 billion for other support equipment.
Science and Technology
The Army Science Board, in a 1981 assessment of AirLand Battle 2000, now known as Army 21, concluded that to execute that doctrine the Army had to concentrate on those technologies in which the United States had a strong superiority over Warsaw Pact nations. Based upon this assessment and other recommendations, the Army, in its 1983 long-range research, development, and acquisition plans, divided these "high-leverage" technologies into five "new technology thrusts." The thrusts did not cover all areas of research and development nor will they replace efforts in such areas as mobility, maintainability, reliability, and survivability as well as general battlefield effectiveness.
The first thrust, Very Intelligent Surveillance and Target Acquisition (VISTA), will use advanced electronic sensors, decentralized data processors, and a combat information center to provide ground commanders near real time intelligence on enemy operations. Closely related to VISTA was the second initiative, Distributed Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (DC 31) . It will enhance communications and the distribution of information to all levels of command under adverse conditions.
The third direction was self-contained munitions that could, after launch, seek out and select a target, then guide a warhead to it without assistance such as laser designation-the so-called fire-and-forget weapons. These munitions will employ the latest advances in fiber optics, electro-optics, infrared, and radar techniques and will include improvements in fuses, warheads, and delivery systems.
Biotechnology was another area and involved creating new treatment and protective measures for infectious diseases, wounds and injuries, and chemical/biological warfare agents. The Medical and Chemical Research and Development Commands will direct the de-
velopment of vaccines, antidotes, and diagnostic agents, as well as chemical and biological warfare detection and identification systems.
The increased use of technologically sophisticated equipment, especially that planned for the future, demanded soldiers who were capable of operating it. This fifth concern is applicable to all initiatives. The Army aimed to simplify teaching a soldier to maintain and operate these complex weapon systems.
These five arenas focused Army research and development efforts into long-term modernization goals. The Army's thirty-four laboratories continued their cooperation with defense contractors and academia to attain these goals. The initiatives received first funding in FY 84. In addition, the AMC established the New Thrust/Demonstration Management Office to coordinate its efforts with those of TRADOC and to plan for the first major field experiment using thrust technologies. This demonstration (DEMO 86/8'7) will be held in the last quarter of FY 86 with FORSCOM providing support and will bring together the new technologies as well as new operational concepts in a combined arms exercise. Every few years, the Army will conduct similar demonstrations to check the progress toward AirLand Battle 2000 and the evolving Army 21. Those technologies that show promise or prove their capability will be incorporated into the new doctrine.
The Advanced Concepts and Technology Committee initiated six new Programs in FY 84 that will continue through FY 86:
1. Bell Aerospace Army flight test of ring fin concept
2. University of Maryland-Method for curing rubber in tank track pads
3. Goodyear-lightweight (less than 50 lbs.) synthetic aperture radar
4. GT Devices-plasma mass accelerator
5. Auburn University Electrical discharge chemical/biological filter
6. Dyna East-Self-forging fragment weapon
Seventeen projects continued from previous fiscal years. The most important of these were the following:
1. Aerojet-Rocket assisted kinetic energy round
2. Bell Lab-Integrated tank fire control concept
3. Hughes Aircraft -Artificial intelligence tactical vehicle control
4. U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Center-Autoloading system for tanks and artillery
Furthermore, several programs previously supported by the committee received increased visibility in FY 84:
1. Stabilization system for mast-mount sight on the OH-58D
2. Large caliber liquid propellant gun
3. Ada, the DOD higher order computer language
The Corps of Engineers continued its military engineering research and development program through FY 84. At Fort McClellan, Alabama, the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) began developing a biological monitoring system to determine the environmental impact of smoke generation training. WES also started field and laboratory investigations to create new technologies in assessing toxic waste sites for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency. Moreover, WES studied the Corps' forestry and related natural resource management practices to determine its environmental impact. During May 1984 the WES Structure Laboratory conducted two tests of the WES-designed antitank ditch formed by liquid explosives. These demonstrations, plus a second series in July, showed that all the techniques worked well and the U.S. Army Engineer School advocated their rapid development, adoption, and fielding.
The Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) worked with the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) to test the properties of high-strength, high-ductility steel plates and welds for the Silo Hardening Program. CERL also field-tested lightweight rails under mobilization loads for the Railroad Maintenance Management System, FORSCOM. As a part of the Winter Battlefield Obscuration Program, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) received approval to study the turbulent and radiative surface heat fluxes and the resulting effects on the atmospheric surface layer over the St. Lawrence Island Polynya.
The Engineer Topographic Laboratory (ETL) submitted preliminary documentation to the Cannon Artillery Weapon System project manager's office for the Modular Azimuth and Positioning System (MAPS), which will provide accurate location information for several Army sensor and weapon systems. ETL scientists cooperated with researchers at the U.S. Army Signal Warfare Laboratory to determine how to use artificial intelligence to integrate terrain data with electronic warfare sensors reports. If successful, the resulting system would improve battlefield management and intelligence preparation on the battlefield. The ETL-developed Digital Elevation Data Dubbing Facility, a van-mounted computer system
that provides digital elevating data for FIREFINDER units, became operational during FY 84. The system's data will improve the speed and accuracy with which the counterartillery radar system can locate enemy gun positions.
The Corps of Engineers also performed military engineering research and development for the Air Force and Navy. For the Air Force, WES conducted dynamic testing on reinforced concrete slabs to determine load distribution, spall phenomena (the breaking or chipping of pieces from slab surfaces), strain rate effects, and casing effects of sealed charges. The Air Force also asked WES to establish criteria for the design, construction, and maintenance of pavement and other transportation-related facilities at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. WES also worked to develop perimeter security systems for air bases. The Ballistic Missile Office (BMO) received the following WES support: geological and structural studies for BMO's deep basing concepts; a proposal for assessing concrete quality; and an evaluation of tunnel boring machine seismic signatures.
CRREL performed several studies for the Air Force on ground conditions in permafrost and seasonal frost areas for airfield construction. The laboratory's scientists conducted site selection studies along the existing Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line in Canada for the North Warning System. The BMO commissioned a,CRREL study on heat sinks for MX deep basing. The study should result in a manual for the preliminary design of buried ice heat sinks.
CERL worked on developing guidance for the selection and installation of durable roofs at remote Air Force sites as well as several projects for testing tactical shelters for electromagnetic protection.
Corps of Engineers' military engineering research and development activities for the Navy included several major projects conducted by WES and CRREL. In FY 84, WES cooperated with the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity to identify and control hazardous waste disposal sites on Navy bases. CRREL conducted several research projects on sea ice for the Navy that included developing large-scale numerical models of the east Greenland marginal sea ice zone to improve Arctic ice forecasting methodology and battlefield weather forecasts.
The Corps of Engineers also conducted an extensive civil works research and development program. On 12 December 1983, the Director for Research and Development, Corps of Engineers, and the Director General of the Finnish Research Center in Helsinki signed a Memorandum of Understanding covering technology transfer and joint projects in Arctic research, river ice management, and cold region construction. CRREL began to monitor and
analyze ice stress around a man-made gravel island in the Beaufort Sea to determine the effect of ice on structures.
Representatives of WES, OCE, the Los Angeles District, and the South Pacific Division met in October 1983 to plan for a demonstration of remote sensing devices to gather wave information. This information would be used to prepare for high wave damage while the waves were still far away from the California shore. Similarly the National Hurricane Center and the WES Coastal Engineering Research Center cooperated on a project to gather surge data from hurricanes, which will lead to better warnings for those people in a hurricane's path.
The National Park Service asked WES to identify inexpensive, expedient, and aesthetically pleasing bank stabilization techniques for protecting a valuable archeological site in the Great Lakes area. WES provided research results from the Environmental and Water Quality Operational Studies and Stream-bank Protection programs, which solved the problem. WES also initiated a study on the retreat of loess bluffs near Vicksburg. The study was part of a larger National Park Service investigation on the feasibility of stabilizing the Natchez Bluffs.
The WES Geotechnical Laboratory, at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provided emergency assistance at leaking waste storage lagoons in Greenup, Illinois. The laboratory's scientists and engineers evaluated the stability of the lagoons' dikes and the possibility of waste spilling into the flood plain.
The National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council, at the request of Under Secretary of the U.S. Army James R. Ambrose, established the Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) on 15 February 1982. Operating under the National Research Council's Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, BAST, composed of 13 civilian members of the academic and commercial research communities, carried out independent, multidisciplinary studies of scientific, technical, and management issues bearing upon the mission of the U.S. Army.
The board met three times in FY 84 to discuss BAST planning for future initiatives and to investigate specific technical aspects of the Army's mission. The first meeting, held at the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station from 25-26 October 1983, introduced board members to scientific and technological issues of major concern to the Corps. The BAST met next at Fort Benning, Georgia, from 27-28 March 1984, and learned about the training programs for infantry soldiers as well as the issues that affected the Infantry's capability to perform its mission. The final meeting, conducted at Fort Detrick, Maryland, 11-12 July 1984, provided
BAST members with an understanding of the capabilities of the Medical Research and Development Command.
The board, at the request of Dr. Jay R. Sculley, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition, formed a Structural Materials Planning Panel in October 1983 to study materials research and development. The panel decided to propose a two-phase study. The first phase would define the requirements and assess the technical capabilities of Army research and development centers to meet them. The second phase would identify expected advances in materials, analyze the barriers to their successful development, and recommend ways for the Army to achieve its goals. After nearly ten months of negotiations with the Army on the study's scope, BAST submitted a proposal, on 21 September 1984, for a study of critical materials required for advanced Army weapon systems. The board awaited a reply at the end of FY 84.
An Electronic Components Panel, also formed in October 1983 at the request of Dr. Sculley, developed a study proposal to identify the most important categories of electronic components required by the Army and to examine factors controlling their availability and methods of reducing shortfalls. It too awaited an Army reply.
A committee on Energetic Materials Science and Technology, created on 16 April 1984, studied high energy materials technology to identify outstanding technical and military problems as well as research requirements for new materials with properties different from those now available. This classified study will also address the scientific and engineering problems associated with the development, production, and stability of high energy materials.
The BAST Committee on Chemical and Biological Sensor Technologies, formed in FY 83, finished an in-depth assessment of defensive chemical warfare sensor technologies in June 1'984. The Committee on Demilitarizing Chemical Munitions and. Agents, also established in FY 83, completed a careful and painstaking investigation of the risk associated with either continued storage or disposal of the existing stocks of chemical agents and munitions located at eight storage sites in CONUS. The committee submitted the report to the Army on 5 September 1984.
Ballistic Missile Defense System
As a component of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) re-
ceived increased attention in FY 84. The organization's research and development mission contributed significantly to the SDI program. Furthermore, BMDO supplied vital assistance to the initial SDI Organization (SDIO). All BMD programs complied with the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. Funding for RDTE for FY 84 was as follows:
1. Advanced Technology Program-$153,372,000.
2. Systems Technology Program-$319,246,000.
3. Kwajalein Missile Range-$142,341,000.
4. Small Business Innovative Research-$695,000.
BMDO comprised the BMD Advanced Technology Center (BMDATC) in Huntsville, Alabama, which performed long-term research and development; the BMD Systems Command (BMDSCOM), also in Huntsville, which executed potential systems design research and development; and the BMD Program Office (BMDPO) in Arlington, Virginia, which provided a centralized point of contact for DOD, Congress, and other agencies. BMDSCOM continued to operate the Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) in the Marshall Islands for various BMD experiments and demonstrations. KMR also provided assistance for other services, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) shuttle program, and data collection on targets for DOD.
The most important internal organizational change with BMDSCOM occurred as a result of the termination of the SENTRY program in FY 83. The SENTRY design used nuclear armed interceptors to destroy enemy Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launched nuclear warheads. In FY 84, BMDSCOM created the Systems Projects Directorate (SPD) and the Systems Development Directorate (SDD) to redirect the SENTRY program toward soft-target ballistic missile defense concepts and technologies as well as aligning operations with the SDI effort.
On 10 June 1984, BMDO successfully completed the fourth and final flight of the Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) program, the first demonstrated destruction of a ballistic reentry vehicle by non-nuclear means. The event made international news. Launched from KMR, the HOE nonnuclear, infrared homing and-kill device intercepted and destroyed by direct impact an unarmed reentry vehicle that had been launched atop an ICBM in California. The destruction occurred more than 100 nautical miles above the Pacific Ocean.
Four firms received contracts totaling $18 million for the concept definition phase of the High Endo-atmospheric Defense System (HEDS ) program. The engineering studies for this phase will
define interceptor kill vehicle and critical components, viable propulsion/control design, and warhead/fuse requirements. In late FY 84, BMDSCOM redesignated the program as the High Exoatmospheric Defense Interceptor (HEDI) project office. The command awarded another four contracts, worth approximately $500,000 each, for the concept definition phase of the Excatmospheric Reentry vehicle Interceptor Subsystem (ERIS) to develop interceptor technology that will use external precommit sensor capabilities in a nonnuclear kill design.
BMDSCOM awarded a five-year $289.4 million contract for the Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA), which will use a modified commercial jet aircraft with two long-wave infrared sensors to acquire, discriminate, and accurately track reentry vehicles (warheads) to augment data being processed by ground-based radars such as the Terminal Imaging Radar (TIR). The TIR project will develop and demonstrate a radar to receive and combine AOA data with its own tracking data and then furnish target data to HEDI. In July 1984, the Department of the Army selected and assigned project managers to the AOA and TIR projects.
SDD redirected the Command, Control, and Communications/ Battle Management (C3/BM) study from the defense of hard targets such as missile sites to the terminal defense phase of the Defense-in-Depth (DID) concept. In June 1984, the directorate published the DID study and in the following month awarded a $1.1 million technical analysis contract to assess state-of-the-art and emerging technologies. Other SDD projects included the Airborne Optical Sensor, the Active/Passive Defense study, the Threat Specific program, and the Antitactical Missile Analysis. The Advanced Technology Center made progress in the Optical Aircraft Measurements Program (DAMP), with construction of the OAMP hangar/operations complex proceeding ahead of schedule, the sensor platform modification advancing on schedule, and the sensor-system contractor completing a final sensor design. The first flight of the Small Radar Homing Intercept Technology (SRHIT) program successfully demonstrated the performance of the vehicle's main propulsion system and launch equipment. The system's maneuverability could not be tested on the second flight because of a malfunction, and BMDATC postponed this demonstration until the third flight scheduled for FY 85. The center also changed the Endoatmospheric Nonnuclear Kill (ENNK) program to support the HEDI project, primarily by switching sensor technology from radar to optical.
Another major project of BMDATC included the completion of four feasible guided projectile designs and definition of gun and
projectile characteristics in the Electromagnetic Accelerator program. The Homing Intercept Technology Concepts Technology Assessment program analyzed miniature interceptor approaches and identified several for SDI application. The BMDATC also expanded the Neutral Particle Beam Technology program from the Los Alamos Laboratory to the Oak Ridge, Lawrence Berkeley, and Brookhaven National Laboratories.
KMR supported 25 missions during FY 84 for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and NASA's shuttle program. The latter received assistance with five shuttle missions, and KMR anticipated more missions in the future as NASA accelerates the shuttle program. KMR faced a second year of emergency water shortage and employed reverse osmosis water purification units that furnished 21 million gallons of fresh water during the last six months of FY 84. The Compact of Free Association, negotiated in 1982 between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands through a plebiscite in 1983, still awaited ratification by the U.S. Congress at the end of FY 84. The House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee held hearings during the year to clarify the issues involved, but did not issue a report.
The Army continued its development of new weapons and the upgrading of old ones as part of the Army's modernization program. This program relied upon technology to counter the quantitative superiority of Warsaw Pact armies. Several major programs are discussed below.
Command, Control, and Surveillance
The Joint Tactical Communications (TRI-TAC) program, a joint service and DOD agency program, continued to develop and field tactical multichannel switched communications equipment. The program aimed to achieve interoperability among service tactical communication systems and to provide new equipment using modern technology. Each service assumed responsibility for the development and acquisition of selected equipment for use by all DOD components.
During FY 84, the Army made significant progress in the TRITAC program. The Army's responsibility included two of the systems's major components, the AN/TTC-39 family of switches, which provided automated connections between tactical communication systems, and the Digital Group Multiplexer Family. The Army continued to field the switches, which were the heart of the system, to CONUS and USAREUR, where they were well received
during FY 84. Engineers began a program to improve one of the switches, AN/TTC-39 Circuit Switch, during the fiscal year. Development of the digital group multiplexer transmission equipment and its cable accessory equipment continued as a mutual effort of the Army and Raytheon Corporation. The Army will field this equipment to the training base in the fall of 1985. Development of the single subscriber terminal (an intelligent terminal used for message preparation and reception) continued during the year. The Army and Magnavox Electronic Systems Company signed a production contract for the lightweight digital facsimile. An addition, USAREUR units received prototypes of the Communications System Control Element.
During the FY 84 Battlefield Communications Review, planners made several major doctrinal decisions about tactical communications architecture. These decisions moved TRI-TAC equipment to EAC and placed Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) in signal units at corps level and below. The MSE program will purchase, off the shelf, the commercial equivalent of a telephone system with mobile radiotelephone service and data capability, to avoid a lengthy and expensive research and development effort.
The Army, as the Executive Agent for the Ground Mobile Forces Satellite Communications, continued development and procurement of Tactical Satellite Communications (TACSATCOM) terminals and control systems. Developers completed first production model testing and follow-on evaluation of the multichannel initial system satellite communications terminals (AN/TSC-85A and AN/TSG-93A) as well as developmental and operational testing of the the anti-jam control modem. Production deliveries of the single channel manpack satellite terminals (AN/PSC-3 and AN/VSC-7) started during the fiscal year and the 1st Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, conducted a successful follow-on evaluation of the equipment. Meanwhile, deployment of the Special Communication System Satellite Communications terminals continued with 100 AN/MSC-64 terminals delivered to Europe and the Pacific to support the Theater Communications System Improvement Program. Although the Army approved the Single Channel Objective Tactical Terminal (SCOTT) for low rate initial production beginning in FY 84, it halted the program during the fiscal year to evaluate requirements, to project program costs, and to assess the need for further development.
The Army awarded the first Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) contract to International Telephone and Telegraph, Fort Wayne, Indiana, during FY 84, for 650
ground radio systems. The contract contained four fixed price negotiated options for a total of 44,100 radios. In February, the Army type-classified the ground system as standard, and the Secretary of the Army approved an acquisition strategy that included production by a second company in FY 85 to meet mobilization requirements and provide a competitor for International Telephone and Telegraph in future procurements. However, because of funding constraints, the Army postponed the establishment of a second production source from FY 85 to FY 87. Meanwhile, research and development continued on deferred items such as the securable remote control unit, airborne radios, installation kits, and test program sets.
The Joint Tactical Fusion Program (JTFP) comprised the Army's All Source Analysis System (ASAS), Tactical Simulation, Technical Control and Analysis Center, elements of the Battlefield Exploitation and Target Acquisition project, and the Air Force's Enemy Situation Correlation Element. Congress directed the Army to change the configuration of ASAS during the year, because Congress believed that the system was too bulky and centralized to be totally effective. As a result of the program restructuring, ASAS work stations will no longer be consolidated in one large ISO-20 van. Rather, they will be separated into smaller huts that can be mounted on 5-ton S-280 trucks and on High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). This change does not, however, diminish system functionality. The project manager's office completed the restructuring action during this period.
The Army continued to support the modernization of the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) by developing ground communication terminals and control systems for DSCS use by the services and DOD agencies. The Army emphasized the development, production, product improvement, and deployment of modern, jam-resistant systems to the worldwide DSCS. Engineers upgraded the system's efficiency, network control, and operation in a nuclear environment and replaced equipment exceeding its useful service life with modern digital communications equipment.
During FY84, the Army deployed 8 of its 32 jam-resistant secure communications AN/GSC-49 terminals to the field to support defense-wide Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence programs. The Army also installed 26 additional AN/USC-28 Electronic Counter Countermeasure (ECCM) units worldwide to provide an antijam capability in support of critical JCS validated communications requirements. Furthermore, engineers delivered 10 more AN/MSC-66s to the field as part of the modernization program. The AN/MSC-66 replaced analog circuits with digital ones,
thus increasing the system's operational capacity. The Army also deployed, installed, and activated five new AN/GSC-39 medium satellite communications earth terminals to back up the expanding role of the DSCS. Furthermore, Army engineers emplaced a new DSCS-Ground Mobile Forces Control Link at Fort Detrick, Maryland, to provide essential control for Ground Forces tactical satellite communications terminals using the DCSC.
The development of the Communications and Control System, the first step of the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS), continued in the advanced development phase during the fiscal year. The AFATDS's next step, the design of the Fire Support System/Fire Support Terminal (FSS/FST) and its associated brigade and battalion software were in preparation for entrance into advanced development. On 30 May 1984, the Army and Magnavox Electronic Systems Company signed a contract for the FSS/FST
The Artillery Locating Radar, AN/TPQ-37 (FIREFINDER), locates enemy projectiles in flight, mathematically backtracks their trajectories, and reports the location of the firing enemy weapons, which allows U.S. counterfire to begin before the projectiles hit the ground. During FY 84, the Army fielded 5 systems within CONUS: 2 each to 2 FORSCOM divisions and 1 to the Combat Surveillance and Target Acquisition Systems Support Center, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Full-scale production units replaced 10 early deployed low rate initial-production systems in Korea and Europe. In addition, the Army installed modification kits evolved from the continuing production test program and completed the exchange of the old antenna transporter dolly for the new 6-ton flatbed trailer.
The Army continued fielding the Tactical Fire Direction System (TACFIRE) on schedule with approximately 75 percent of the active force equipped at the end of FY 84 and complete deployment planned for the second quarter of FY 87.
The prime contractor for the Position Location Reporting System (PLRS), Hughes Aircraft, monitored by government agencies, continued its scheduled production of initial systems for the Army and Marine Corps. Hughes Aircraft expected to field the system to both services in 1986. The deployment of the PLRS Engineering Development Model (EDM) continued to field forces of the two services, which tested the system in tactical line scenarios such as maneuver control, line artillery fire, and aviation coordination. Engineers also conducted electronic warfare and propagation evaluations, which successfully demonstrated the system's resistance to jamming. To ensure support for initial fielding, the Army awarded or continued contracts for development and production of the
PLRS Master Station Trainer, the development of the User Readout Simulator, and software enhancement for Improved Simulated PLRS, Improved Data Analysis, and Scenario Generation. Integrated logistics support initiatives, such as continuation of the development and procurement of the PLRS Test Set and the Direct Support Team Vehicle to be used for field maintenance, continued during FY 84.
On 30 January 1984, the Army awarded a $27,414,000 firm fixed-price contract to the Hughes Aircraft Company for 180 Ground/Vehicular Laser Locator Designators (G/VLLD). The U.S. Army Field Artillery Board at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, conducted the FIST Force Development Testing and Experimentation II at Fort Riley, Kansas, from 9 April to 10 May 1984. Part of this test included the use of a G/VLLD mounted and dismounted from the FIST vehicle, which demonstrated that the observation/lasing team using the G/VLLD was best deployed as far forward as possible. The FISTV modification on the Laser Designator Ranger-finder began in March 1984 at the Sacramento Army Depot, California.
On 26 March 1984, the Missile Command (MICOM) commander recommended a conditional release of 148 G/VLLD units to the Rapid Deployment Force and training centers. Because of urgent fielding requirements, he approved the full release of 41 AN/TVQ 2 G/VLLDs on 17 April 1984-30 to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), 6 to TRADOC at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), and 5 to TRADOC at Fort Sill. On 22 June 1984, the MICOM commander approved the unit's full release; fielding of the first increment of G/VLLD units to USAREUR began on 20 September 1984.
Risk reduction efforts were made on the joint Surveillance and Target Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System radar during FY 84. In May 1984, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the U.S. Army-U.S. Air Force Joint Force Development Process. One initiative identified the G18 aircraft (a Boeing 707 converted for military use) as the single platform for the joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JOINT STARS). With both services in agreement on requirements and the choice of a platform, the Army, in August 1984, awarded a contract to Motorola for full-scale development of the Ground Station Module. The Army also completed the system specification for the prime mission equipment (radar, platform, and data link), reconfirmed an acquisition strategy, and in September 1984 started the competitive source selection for the prime contractor.
In December 1983, the Army submitted requests for proposals for the Short Range Air Defense Command and Control System's (SHORAD C2) integration and software development contract.
After receiving proposals in March 1984, the Army began source selection. However, during a series of program reviews held from April through June 1984, the Under Secretary of the Army and the VCSA questioned the system's cost and capability. Planners substantially revised the SHORAD C2 program to lower its cost and accelerate initial operational capability. Therefore, the Army rescheduled the Army Systems Acquisitions Review Council II and Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council 11 reviews to FY 85.
The production of the Position and Azimuth Determining System (PADS) continued for the final year of a two-year contract with Litton Industries. By the end of FY 84, the contractor delivered 99 PADS systems to the Army, which planned for a final production contract to be awarded in FY86.
In the field of night vision devices, the Army awarded advanced development contracts for the AN/PVS-6, Mini-Eye-safe Laser Infrared Observation Set (MELIOS), and the Passive Wide Area Alerting System (PWAAS). Full-scale development began on the C02 Laser Rangefinder, continued on the AN/PVS-7, a third-generating night vision goggle, and ended on the digital scan converter, a real-time video processor of thermal imaging signals. Procurement of the AN/PVS-5A, a second-generation night vision goggle, and the AN/PVS-4, an individual served weapon sight, continued during the fiscal year, while procurement ended for the AN/TAM-3 night test set and the AN/TAM-6 night sight maintenance facility.
The Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) Mission Payload System (FMPS) and its integration into the AQUILA Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) system proceeded into full-scale development as the Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation received a $40,789,610 fixed-price incentive contract on 31 May 1984. The FMPS program comprised four air vehicles, a ground system less the ground control station, and a reduced test program. The Initial Production Readiness Review of the RPV system took place at Lockheed Austin Division during 14-18 November 1983. Critical concerns continued to be the mission payload tooling time, laser production capability, and engine performance including operating time between overhauls. On 22 September 1984, the Lockheed Austin Division signed a fixed price contract for developing, qualifying, and integrating a new data management system into the AQUILA ground control station. As of 1 October 1984, the Army had conducted 22 RPV Block 11 test flights, 15 of which were successful, and 20 Early Operational Capability flights, with 19 successes. Problems encountered in the flight testing program were primarily due to lack of test hardware and system design immaturity. The qualification testing for both element/compo-
nent and system/subsystem led to the start of 271 tests, of which 218 were completed by the end of FY84.
At the beginning of FY 84, the Army deployed Remotely Monitored Battlefield Sensor System (REMBASS) prototype components with U.S. forces in Grenada. Used in an area surveillance role under combat conditions, the system did perform well. Combat forces praised REMBASS for its performance in the intense electromagnetic interference environment caused by the widespread and concentrated use of electric equipment during the joint operation.
In early FY 84, REMBASS completed RDTE and received Army approval for production. However, the program suffered a setback when Congress; reviewing operational test results, concluded that the system required additional development. Congress denied an FY 84 production start and appropriated $5 million for further RDTE. Subsequently, Congress received the results of an independent evaluation of the system's performance, which criticized the operational testing and validated REMBASS readiness for production and fielding. Based upon this evaluation and the system's performance in Grenada, the Army obtained congressional support for an FY 85 production start.
The FY 83 Improved High Frequency Radio (IHFR) contracts continued on schedule and within budget through FY 84 for FY 85 delivery. In December 1983 and July 1984, the Army made basic ordering agreements with the IHFR contractors for procuring 44 radios to support the Pershing II in Europe. In August 1984, scientists tested the advanced development model of the Short Term Antijam module, which will provide electronic counter-countermeasure protection through frequency hopping for the IHFR family of equipment. The test demonstrated the technical suitability of the military standard antijam waveform and prepared the way for the engineering development phase scheduled for FY 85.
The Army awarded the final Battery Computer System (BCS) increment (146 systems) of the five-year production contract with Norden Systems in March 1984, and fourth year deliveries (147) started in April. The BCS deployed to the 193d Infantry Brigrade, Panama, in July 1984, and to the 2d Infantry Division in Korea. The Army negotiated a BCS Test Program Station contract during the fiscal year, as well as a BCS Interface Training Simulator contract (September 1984).
The Army recognized the current threat to Army telephone communications from enemy espionage agencies and took several actions during FY 84 to enhance communications security. These included procuring 2,570 secure telephone units for delivery and installation between FY 84 and FY 85 and purchasing 106 TSP
2,000 secure telephones for the AMC/PM contractor community for complete installation by September 1985. In addition, the Army activated the CSA portable secure voice package and installed secure telephones in the quarters of key Army leaders.
The High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) program used modifications to a newly designed, light, highly mobile vehicle to satisfy weapons carrier, communications, utility, and ambulance missions. It will replace the M274 Mule, the M561 Gama Goat, and some M151 Y4-ton trucks. In FY 84, the HMMWV program entered postproduction vehicle testing. The contractor delivered initial production vehicles in January 1984 and started shakedown testing. Initial production tests began at Yuma Proving Ground and Aberdeen Proving Ground in July 1984, and the U.S. Army Operational Test and Evaluation Agency started a Follow on Evaluation in September 1984. The Army conducted extensive integrated logistic support activities parallel to the testing program. In addition, the contractor developed squad carrier and Stinger weapon carrier prototypes and delivered them to the Army for evaluation.
In FY 83, the Army awarded a sole-source low rate initial production contract to the Pacific Car and Foundry Company for 15 M9 Armored Combat Earthmovers (ACE) and accepted delivery of them in FY 84. Initial production testing occurred from April through September 1984. Results indicated that the M9 had to demonstrate better operational reliability and effectiveness. Therefore, the Army withdrew a follow-on five-year contract, which was to be awarded in late FY 84, and directed that a follow-on evaluation be made. This evaluation program, by the U.S. Army Operational Test and Evaluation Agency, would identify and correct deficiencies, develop test parameters to evaluate operational reliability and effectiveness, and complete an independent evaluation. report before the fourth quarter of FY 85.
In FY 84, Commercial Utility and Cargo Vehicle production continued, and the Army deployed a total of 21,399 vehicles to all MACOMs as well as to the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The M939 5-ton truck program reached full production with 8,313 vehicles built and fielded to all MACOMs.
Initial production testing of the front axles and Grove Crane began in August 1984 on the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT), 10-ton. In August 1984, the Army fielded HEMTTs to multiple launch rocket system units. The Army also modified the
HEMTT contract in October 1983 to develop an improved wrecker. HEMTT production during FY 84 reached 2,500 trucks. The M.A.N. 10-ton truck supported the Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missile initial operational capability in Europe. M.A.N. built 83 trucks during FY 84.
During FY 84, the Army completed initial production testing of the first Ground Emplaced Mine Scattering System (GEMSS) dispensers from Engineering Systems Development Corporation and the M75 antitank mine. Later in the year, first article testing began on first production dispensers from AAI Corporation. Logisticians identified all dispenser provisioning items and awarded contracts to obtain them by the end of FY84. In August 1984, the Army awarded Engineering Systems Development Corporation a contract for 41 GEMSS dispensers for delivery starting in May 1986.
During FY 84, production and fielding of the M753 improved 8-inch nuclear projectile continued on schedule. The Army conducted the second cycle of stockpile reliability testing during the fiscal year with joint test units and fuses meeting or surpassing test standards. However, during rocket motor testing in January 1984, four motors prematurely ignited for unknown reasons. At the end of FY 84, the exact cause of these failures remained unknown, and investigators suspended the test program pending identification and elimination of the problem.
The Army conducted numerous exploratory development activities on binary chemical agents, munitions materials, and prototype weapon design. These included studies on new binary agents or methods of defeating protective ensembles and equipment. Construction of the DF (intermediate agent for binary nerve GB) facility started at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, with a schedule for completion in FY85. Scientists also investigated new or improved binary submunitions for the MLRS chemical warhead. The Army continued its engineering development support for the Navy's BLU-80/B BIGEYE bomb. Engineers also continued engineering options studies for commercial and/or government facilities to manufacture dicloro (DC) for the M697155-mm. projectile and CAL for the BIGEYE bomb.
During FY 84, the third year of production, the Army awarded contracts to Hughes Helicopter, Inc., for 112 AH-64 Apaches and
to Martin-Marietta for 112 Target Acquisition Designation Sights and Pilot Night Vision Sensors (TADS/PNVS). Hughes Helicopter, Inc., delivered the first production aircraft in February 1984, followed later in the fiscal year by 7 more of the Lot I production contract (11 helicopters). The remaining 3 arrived in October 1984.
In December 1983, the program manager assumed responsibility for funding Apache Combat Mission Simulators and awarded long lead time contracts for two simulators during the second quarter of FY 84. The Army's Apache aviator training program included pilot training in PNVS-equipped AH-1S Cobras. The Northrop Corporation began assembling these surrogate trainers in June 1984. The Army started integration verification on the first completed aircraft by the close of the fiscal year.
During FY 84, the Army continued to upgrade the AH-1S Cobra/TOW attack helicopter by deciding to integrate Forward Looking Infrared sensors with the TOW 2 to provide the Cobra with a night operations capability. The Cobra Fleet Life Extension (C-FLEX) program to upgrade twenty-two AH-1Ss and seven AH-16s to fully mission capable status began in January 1984 at the Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas. On 26 September 1984, Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., received a contract to modify these aircraft for the Army National Guard.
The performance and battle worthiness of the UH-60 Black Hawk in the Grenada operation were impressive. For example, one UH-60 successfully completed its mission although the pilot was wounded, the fuel tanks were punctured, most of the control instrumentation was destroyed, and the rotors were damaged. Since FY 84 was the last year of the FY 82-84 multiyear procurement airframe contract, the Army negotiated a follow-on FY 85-87 contract for awarding in October 1984. During FY 84, the Army fielded 154 aircraft: 52 to Germany, 84 to Korea, and 8 to Panama. Black Hawk total production reached 574 by 30 September 1984. Sikorsky Aircraft received approval to maintain a ten-aircraft-per-month delivery rate rather than the eight-per-month rate through FY 85.
The contractor completed the upgrading of the UH-60's corrosion protection to the Navy's SH-60B level and incorporated it into all production deliveries beginning June 1984. The Hover Infrared Suppressor Subsystem completed both development and operational testing during FY 84 and awaited production readiness review in the first quarter of FY 85, with production incorporation planned for February 1987. The FY 84 Defense Appropriations Act directed that the Army integrate and qualify the Hellfire missile system on the UH-60A. As a result, the Army awarded a $7.9 mil-
lion contract on 21 September 1984. A separate contract for integrated logistics support; producibility, engineering, and planning; and a technical data package will be added to it in FY 85. The Fiber Technology Corporation received a contract in December 1983 to produce a 230-gallon crashworthy external fuel tank for the UH-60A (Army), HH-60A (Air Force), and AH-64 (Army).
The CH-47 modernization program continued on schedule through the fourth year of production with 42 of the 88 contracted aircraft delivered by the end of the fiscal year. The modernized CH-47D arrived at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in February 1984, on schedule. Its performance met or exceeded all design requirements, with an operations readiness of 78 percent against a standard of 70 percent for the aircraft during the fiscal year. Congress approved a five-year multiyear procurement of 48 modernizations per year for FY 85 through FY 89. The Army started negotiations for this procurement by the end of FY 84.
The Army conducted the Army Helicopter Improvement Pro gram (AHIP) Development Test II during July and August 1984 and began the Operational Test II in September. A Headquarters, Department of the Army, In-Process Review (IPR) assessed program status before awarding a low rate initial production contract. Based upon this assessment of subsystem test results and reasonable program maturity, including program cost, the IPR members recommended and received approval to award a contract for sixteen aircraft. In September 1984, Bell Helicopter Textron received the contract for airframe components and integration of the mast mounted sight.
During FY 84, the Army Acquisition Objective for C-12 Fixed Wing Utility Aircraft remained at 365 planes. However, the Army, because of higher priority requirements, omitted C-12 procurement from its FY 84 budget request. Nevertheless, Congress again added $11.7 million to the FY 84 defense authorization bill to purchase six aircraft. For the fiscal year, the C-12 maintenance and training contracts continued with Beech Aerospace Service, Inc., and the operational readiness rate for FY 84 averaged 92 percent.
The Army continued to monitor the V-22 (JVX) tilt rotor development program, which the U.S. Navy managed, and planned to procure 231 aircraft beginning in FY 91. The Operational and Organization Plan will be drafted during FY 85. The JVX, officially named the V-22 OSPREY, will enter full-scale development during July 1985 with a Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council Decision in October 1985.
The current Army fleet of Vietnam War vintage AH-1, UH-1, OH-S8, and OH-6 helicopters, nearly 30 years old by the mid-
nineties, is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain and is not capable of fully performing its required mission in many parts of the world today. Since the mid-seventies, the Army has explored a concept of an advanced rotorcraft family that could meet its future requirements while maintaining a maximum degree of component commonality. The light helicopter (LHX) family is designed to meet the requirements of AirLand Battle doctrine and Army 21 as well as the demands of force modernization. The LHX, developed around two basic configurations, scout/attack (SCAT) and utility, will be a lightweight, highly reliable, and easily maintained weapon system that will achieve a high degree of standardization and a reduction in support costs. Both models will share common engine and dynamic components, as well as a fully integrated/automated cockpit arrangement. The LHX will give the Army a day/night/all weather, NBC-capable, self-deployable, and survivable weapon system for the next century. In FY 84, the Army attempted to narrow the scope and clearly define the LHX program and continued to explore and formulate operational concepts. In May 1984, an LHX Program Review established that scout/attack and utility configurations will be developed concurrently.
Missiles and Air Defense
The Army also pursued its development of the minimum smoke motor and the improved low visibility autopilot of the Hell fire missile system during FY 84. Engineers finished tests of first production models (first article tests) of the missile launcher and laser seeker and started first article tests on the missile. The Army awarded a third year production contract for 4,651 missiles for Army procurement and 220 missiles for Navy procurement
Congress provided funding for the existing low rate of production for the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) including the procurement of 36,000 tactical rockets and 76 self-propelled launcher loaders. Congress also restored RDTE funding for the MLRS Binary Chemical Warfare in the FY 84 budget after deleting it from the FY83 Defense Appropriations Bill.
As a result of the MLRS Fire Control System Operational Testing III, the contractor designed a new version of the tactical software to increase capabilities, improve ballistic computations, enhance position-determining system accuracy, simplify operation, and correct minor deficiencies. Acceptance testing started on 18 January 1984 at While Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The Army halted these tests in March 1984 because of a fuse problem. The contractor corrected
the problem and tests resumed in October 1984. A 54 rocket follow on evaluation test program began in July 1984 to evaluate system software and accuracy with 48 rockets flight tested by the end of FY 84.
LTV Aerospace Corporation delivered 2,178 tactical rockets and 78 self-propelled launcher loaders to the Army, bringing total deliveries of each to 5,862 and 132 respectively. On 30 December 1983, the contractor exercised Option 1 to the multiyear contract, which provided $82,673,000 to acquire the advance materials required for the FY 88 procurement of 3,948 practice rockets and 72,000 tactical rockets.
MLRS fieldings continued on schedule during FY84 with CONUS tactical batteries deployed to FORSCOM units and two batteries sent to USAREUR for the 1st Armored Division, Erlangen, Germany, and the 3d Armored Division, Hanau, Germany. The Army fielded another battery to the 2d Infantry Division in Korea, which represented the largest single increase in -Eighth United States Army firepower since October 1978. To help improve support to the recently deployed batteries, the Army delayed the deployment of two POMCUS batteries from FY 84 until FY 85.
The Army awarded a fixed price incentive contract during FY 84 for 12 fire units and 440 missiles in the Patriot missile system. This brought the total number under contract to 43 fire units and 1,150 missiles out of a planned total program of 103 and 5,977, respectively. It received 66 missiles and 21 fire units during FY 84, and conducted operational testing in FY 84 that confirmed the system's reliability, readiness, and capability. At the end of the fiscal year the system awaited Army certification for fielding to Europe in FY 85.
Early in December 1983, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) entered a historic agreement for enhancing air defense for Central Europe. The agreement called for the United States to furnish Patriot missiles to FRG in return for FRG providing, operating, and maintaining Roland units to defend certain U.S. air bases in southern Germany. The first foreign sales of Patriot occurred in February 1984, when the Netherlands signed Letters of Agreement covering Patriot system hardware, spares, and training. In August 1984, the Japan Defense Agency announced its approval of Patriot as the replacement for its aging Nike Hercules.
On 16 May 1984, the Department of the Army terminated the U.S. Roland Air Defense System and replaced it with Chaparral. It based this decision solely upon affordability and supportability, because the Roland's system had demonstrated effectiveness and reliability. However, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) included language in the Omnibus Defense Authorization Act of 1985
that supported the continued deployment of Roland in the Army National Guard. At the same time SASC recognized that the Army should eventually replace the Roland system because of the extra expense of operating a one-of-a-kind unit. The House Armed Services Committee agreed and the Army, on 2 July 1984, agreed that if Congress so directed it would take no irreversible actions that would make it impossible to field Roland in the National Guard. The contractors delivered the total procurement of 595 missiles and furnished the 27 fire units for testing. The Army fielded one Roland light battalion (5th Battalion, 200th Air Defense Artillery [Roland]) in the New Mexico National Guard during the fiscal year.
The Army continued to improve the Chaparral air defense system in FY 84 to enhance missile fuse performance, upgrade the master control indicator panel, and improve NBC protection. The Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation received a production contract in January 1984 to provide the 9th Infantry Division with thirteen towed Chaparral systems. The towed system also will be fielded to the light divisions. Deployment to the National Guard started in FY 84, with the first tracked systems going to the New Mexico National Guard.
Increased Army efforts to maintain Hawk Missile System readiness led to creation of a special team of USAREUR, MICOM, and industry representatives to study the system and recommend methods to improve it. In addition, logisticians established an intensive management system to reduce the turnaround time of reparable parts. Program planning, budget formulation, and acquisition strategy began for supporting future Hawk deployment. Fielding of Phase II product improvements continued during the fiscal year with the first CONUS battery equipped in July. Meanwhile, contractors completed the Phase III preproduction model hardware for testing. In February 1984, the Hawk project office finished plans to transfer two Hawk battalions to the ARNG and awaited Army concurrence. The Army deployed Pershing II missiles to Europe in December 1983, replacing Pershing la missiles on a one-to-one basis, and also approved a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) in FY 84 to keep the Lance missile system viable into the 1990s and started its first SLEP improvement program in June.
The Department of the Army awarded its final purchase of Basic Stinger in March 1984 and exercised its option to procure 515 Stinger-POST (Passive Optical Seeker Technique) rounds in September 1984. Production deliveries of Stinger-POST will begin in September 1985 followed by deliveries of Stinger-RMP (Reprogrammable Microprocessor) to U.S. Forces in July 1987. On 20
September 1984 Congress approved $47.4 million for Stinger-RMP program RDTE.
The U.S. Infantry School fielded new training devices for the Dragon antitank weapon system in FY 84. The Launch Effects Simulator provided a major improvement over previous trainers in simulating recoil, high noise level, blast overpressure, flame, smoke, debris, and short-term obscuration. After testing Dragon missiles stored since 1974 and 1977, respectively, the Army extended the shelf-life reliability period from ten years to twelve.
The Army received 18,000 TOW 2 missiles during FY 84 and the TOW 2 continued to maintain a reliability rating greater than 90 percent based upon Annual Service Practice, the Shelf-Life Reliability Program, and the Fly to Buy Program. The first TOW 2s reached Europe and Korea during the fiscal year as Army researchers continued the product improvement program to ensure the missile's effectiveness into the 1990s.
As a result of systemic quality control problems found by the Air Force and Navy on the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) and PHOENIX missile, the Army and Hughes Aircraft conducted a quality control inspection of the TOW 2 missile production line that resulted in closing the Hughes plant at Tucson, Arizona. At the end of FY 84, the plant remained closed although both Hughes and the Army expected it to reopen within a few months because of the contractor's improved quality control procedures.
The Army Chief of Staff approved the replacement of the Rattler medium antitank system with the Advanced Antitank Weapon System (AAWS) in February 1984. The AAWS-M program was undergoing ASARC evaluation and the Army expected their decision on the program's scope and final plan during August 1985.
The Memorandum of Agreement on U.S. Army-U.S. Air Force Joint Force Development Process, dated 22 May 1984, mandated the creation of a joint statement of need for the joint Tactical Missile System (JTACMS). The statement delineated the services development programs, but required the components to be complementary. Both services issued this statement on 3 August 1984, thereby establishing the basis for either service separately to develop complementary weapons. Therefore, the Air Force terminated its on-site participation in the JTACMS project at the Army's Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
The Antitactical Missile (ATM) System Project Office continued to study Patriot as an antitactical missile, but in February 1984 stopped due to a lack of FY 84 funding. They also extensively evaluated the Hawk for the same role. Afterward, the Army Missile Labo-
ratory, following instructions from the VCSA, analyzed the system's capabilities to seek ways to overcome the identified deficiencies.
The Sgt York Division Air Defense (DIVAD) Gun System program received extensive publicity during FY84, much of it unfavorable. Four Secretary of Defense Performance Reviews examined system performance and reliability, the need for operational testing of production hardware, and the contractor's ability to meet production schedules. A Design Verification Test started in March and continued through the fiscal year to complete contractor system acceptance testing and further evaluate Sgt York performance. In response to the Secretary of Defense's direction to perform operational testing of production hardware, the U.S. Army Operational Test and Evaluation Agency conducted a Sgt York Limited Test at Fort Bliss, Texas, from 20 July to 2 August 1984, using military crews and three production units. A complete evaluation of the system in a realistic battlefield environment was not possible because of limited crew training and incomplete doctrine; contractor performance of all field maintenance except for government furnished equipment and supply actions; an inability to generate a totally realistic threat as outlined in approved threat documents; and range resources and safety limitations, which restricted tactical scenarios.
The first production fire unit scheduled for delivery in October 1983 was delayed until 13 March 1984 because of initial startup problems at the contractor's production and test facilities. Eventually, the contractor delivered seventeen fire units during FY 84. The Secretary of Defense, in September 1984, postponed the Army's exercise of the third production option for procuring 117 fire units (planned for 5 November 1984) until the Army could perform more realistic operational testing in FY 85.
The Army also countered two major DOD Inspector General (IG) actions concerning the Sgt York during FY 84. The first resulted from a DOD IG "hotline" complaint that alleged that the Army did not furnish the DSARC with all available test data. The second concerned a DOD IG audit that claimed the prime contractor negotiated lower prices with his subcontractors after the completion of Army negotiations. This cost the government $84 million in excess costs. At meetings held during May and June 1984, the Army provided extensive documentation to prove that the hotline complaint was untrue. In its response to the draft DOD IG audit, the Army explained in detail the factual errors that led to the IG findings.
The Ml Abrams tank production rate continued its gradual increase to 3.5 tanks per day in September. Table 13 details delivery rates:
TABLE 13 - M1 ABRAMS TANK DELIVERIES
(Fiscal Years 1980-1984)
1 Lima Army Tank Plant.
2 Detroit Army Tank Plant.
The Army fielded 791 Ml tanks during the fiscal year to USAREUR and FORSCOM units and to POMCUS. In USAREUR, three squadrons and one battalion received the vehicles, thereby completing the fielding effort for the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 2d Armored Division (Forward). Deployment to the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment began with the outfitting of one squadron. In addition, the Army completed delivery of four battalion sets for POMCUS.
In CONUS, the Army completed delivery of the full complement of Ml tanks to the 1st Cavalry Division with new equipment training scheduled to conclude in the second quarter of FY 85. In addition, the materiel fielding team finished new equipment training for the North Carolina National Guard and moved to Mississippi to prepare that state's National Guard for further M1 fielding. By the end of FY 84, a total of 19 Active and roundout battalions received MIS with another 8 battalion sets going into POMCUS.
In FY 84 the Army continued to reduce the tank program's operations and support costs through potential savings in unit training ammunition and fuel consumption. Other cost saving actions included R&D/technological innovations for the track and starter, revalidation of the tank's operating scenario, utilization of the combat vehicle evaluation program for M1 overhaul activities, and establishment of an Army policy restricting M1 annual usage to 850 miles. Furthermore, the Army began a study to determine the cost benefits of installing oil screens to prevent oil line clogging.
During the reporting period, Should Cost Reviews supported intensive negotiations for the tank program's major component procurements. For example, the fourth and fifth year production contracts showed associated hardware cost savings of $230,263. Multiyear procurement strategies also produced significant savings in hardware unit costs. For example, the current savings in FY 83-85 multiyear procurements amounted to $131.1 million or approximately $54,000 per tank.
At congressional direction, the DOD Cost Advisory Improvement Group and the Army conducted a study in December 1983 and January 1984 to determine the feasibility of obtaining the Ml's AGT-1500 engine from a second source. In March 1984, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition recommended to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering that multiyear contracts be awarded to AVCO (prime contractor) and a second source. The subsequent DOD recommendation to Congress called for awarding of a second source contract on a single year basis with successive variable quantity competitive buys from AVCO and the second source. Nevertheless, the FY 85 congressional legislation continued the prohibition on awarding a second source contract as stipulated in the FY 84 defense appropriations bill.
Successful completion of the power train durability test in December 1983 allowed Ml production to increase to a nominal rate of 70 per month. The tank's outstanding performance during the test finally laid to rest one of its major criticisms. The Army also focused attention in FY 84 on starting production of the Improved Ml (IPM1), which was co-produced with the Ml and featured an improved suspension system and enhanced survivability features. The production program was three months ahead of schedule and the first IPM1 will roll off the assembly line in October 1984. The overall production program of the Ml and IPM1, both with the 105-mm. main gun, called for 2,374 M1s and 894 IPM1s. The Ml program manager office began developing plans to enhance the M1s' fire control optics with new technology and to add an auxiliary power unit for peacetime use that will enable crew members to operate electrical systems without running the tank's main engine.
In August 1984, the Army's extensive investigation of Texas Instruments-manufactured microcircuits uncovered the possibility that these devices, used in the Ml and M60 tanks, may have received incomplete testing at the factory. The Army approved waivers to permit use of the microcircuits and, to date, no component failure has been attributed to the suspect devices.
The Abrams tank program included a number of improvements such as a 120-mm. smoothbore gun and ammunition, a hybrid NBC protective system with microcooling, and an armor modification package. The Ml tank incorporating these changes was designated the M1A1. The M1A1 completed Operational Test II in April 1984 and all essential Development Test II requirements in July. Fourteen prototypes traveled a total of 44,000 miles, fired a total of 12,000 main gun rounds, and met or bettered all RAM-D (reliability, availability, maintainability, and durability) requirements. The M1E1 ASARC III type classified the M1A1 Standard in August 1984. The new tank will weigh 63.0 tons and move at 41.5 mph.
The U.S. 120-mm. program to transfer the technology for the German-design cannon and ammunition neared completion and initial production started. The U.S. development of the XM829 Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Tracer cartridge finished the full-scale engineering development phase and the program resolved major technical issues and completed the test phase of the Technology Transfer, Fabrication and Test program. The Army continued its successful transfer of the cannon technology during the fiscal year with Watervliet Arsenal fabricating 31 complete XM256 cannons and 56 spare tubes. Although the U.S.-made XM827 kinetic energy rounds with depleted uranium cores successfully passed accuracy and armor penetration tests, the Army decided not to produce them but to concentrate on the XM829 round.
Program managers continued development of the XM829 cartridge with a successful test in Panama of straight wall cartridge cases and a DTII test at Aberdeen Proving Ground. As a result of these tests the contractor made improvements in the round and received approval for producing 8,500. In September 1984, the Army awarded two contracts to develop, test, and demonstrate a successful design for the engineering development of the XM859 HEAT multipurpose cartridge.
The production of the M60A3 Tank Thermal Sight (TTS) tank for the Army concluded in FY 84 with a total of 1,052 M60A3 (TTS) tanks built since production started in FY 80. Production of M60A3 tanks continued for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) with the last tank scheduled for May 1986 delivery. The Army also increased its M60A3 (TTS) fleet through the M60AI tank conversion program and the M60A3 tank field retrofit program conducted by the Anniston Army Depot and the Mainz Army Depot. Depot field teams retrofitted all of the Army's 748 M60A3 tanks to the TTS configuration by the end of FY 84. In addition, the two depots converted a total of 1,391 M60AI tanks to the M60A3 (TTS). To date,
the new production, retrofit, and conversion programs provided the Army with 3,191 M60A3 (TTS) tanks. The currently funded program calls for the conversion of an additional 2,209 M60A1 vehicles by FY 89. The Army did not plan on converting its remaining 1,952 M60Als to the M60A3 (TTS) configuration. Work on the M60 series tank product improvement program also continued during FY 84 to enhance tank performance in firepower, mobility, survivability, and RAM-D as well as to provide greater commonality and interoperability with the Ml tank.
The Army continued the 105-mm. Tank Gun Enhancement Program to extend the useful life of the fielded M60 and Ml tank fleets at a minimal cost. The program's goals were the development of an improved kinetic energy round, the XM900, and an extended (approximately 1.6 meters) 105-mm. gun tube, the XM24, to retrofit onto the M60A3 and Abrams tanks. During FY 84, the Watervliet Arsenal manufactured and delivered 14 XM24 tubes and 17 breeches for cannon, vehicle, and ammunition evaluations. The XM900 projectile received design evaluation testing during the fiscal year. The Army completed the advanced development phase in February 1984 and initiated it for the Ml in March. Full-scale development will begin in November 1984 for the M60A3 and January 1985 for the Abrams.
The Army successfully and smoothly fielded the Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems at Fort Hood and in Europe with a total of 1,336 vehicles delivered by the end of FY 84. The logistics support package functioned well and the Bradley proved itself operationally, with a reliability exceeding the Army's specifications. The program was mature, stable, well supported by Congress, and enthusiastically received by the soldiers. After delivery of the FY 84 procurement of 600 vehicles, production will be shifted to a modified Bradley. This major modification of the TOW 2 missile guidance subsystem will increase the crew's ability to fight effectively at night, in bad weather, and under smoke, dust, or electro, optical jamming conditions.
Under congressional pressure to reduce cost, the program manager actively sought ways to minimize Bradley costs, even though the Army procured the vehicles below budgeted levels. Several areas under investigation included the judicious application of multiyear and competitive contracting techniques and the opening to competition of production of the integrated sight unit and 25-mm. cannon.
The Ballistic Research Laboratory conducted a new test on the Bradley in 1984 to define the behind armor effects of shaped charged munitions hitting the vehicle. The test laid the groundwork for future plans to improve crew survivability against these munitions.
The Army continued development on several components of the mobile protected gun project during FY 84. These included a lightweight long recoil 105-mm. gun with muzzle brake, lightweight track and suspension systems, a lightweight hull structure, and appliqué armor. The resulting vehicle will be air deployable and provide light and motorized forces with an assault and antiarmor armored weapon.
The latest modifications of the venerable M113 family of vehicles included armored external fuel tanks, spall suppression liners, attachment points for appliqué armor, and an increased drive train capability. The Army planned on upgrading 6,500 to 8,000 M113 vehicles as well as incorporating the improvements in new FY 84 production vehicles, which will be fielded in FY 87. These modified vehicles will be designated M13A3. During the year development began on appliqué armor for the M113 and improvement of spall suppression technology for the Improved TOW Vehicles (ITVs) and Fire Integration Support Team Vehicles (FISTVs).
A modification program began in FY 84 to adapt all ITVs to fire basic TOW, Improved TOW, and TOW 2 missiles and finished 1,225 conversions during the year. All new production vehicles were TOW 2 capable. During hearings on the FY 85 budget, Congress added $27.0 million for procurement of ITV modification kits to upgrade the National Guard's assets. Deliveries will begin in March 1986.
The Army continued to assess the equipment requirements of the light infantry division and other light forces, such as the 82d Airborne Division, to meet their capability of rapidly deploying by air worldwide and operating unreinforced for an extended period against more heavily armed enemy forces. This mission underscored the need for towed artillery indirect fire support that provides increased range and lethality, high strategic and tactical mobility, ability to use existing ammunition stockpiles, and capability of its being fielded by FY 87. To meet this requirement, the Army investigated several 105-mm. howitzer systems and found that only the British L119 met all qualifications. In addition, the Army initiated a program to develop improved 105-mm. ammunition.
The medium (155-mm.) towed howitzer systems, utilized as a general support/corps artillery system, remained unchanged during FY 84. The Army continued to modernize the M114 to extend its range from 14.6 to 19.3 kilometers and to allow it to use upgraded ammunition. The Rock Island Arsenal delivered several M198s, significantly improved replacements for part of the M114 inventory, which were capable of firing rocket assisted rounds with a 30 kilometer range. Because of fiscal constraints, the Army was unable to procure more than a small number of M198s during FY84.
In FY 84, the Army completed the engineering design for the crew ballistic shelter to include improved NBC protection for the M110 (8-inch) self-propelled howitzer. This was part of a mid-life product improvement program for various M110 system upgrades to enhance reliability, availability, and maintainability. However, monetary constraints precluded immediate funding for these modernizations and the Army budgeted for them in the Five-Year Defense Plan.
M109A2 (155-mm.) self-propelled howitzer procurement funding restarted in FY 84 for 120 guns in FY 84 and 70 in FY 85. This will fulfill the Army's requirement. The Howitzer Extended Life Program and the Howitzer Improvement Program continued during FY 84 to extend the system's usefulness to 2000. As the result of an ASARC conducted in April 1984, the Army selected the most critical and cost effective improvements from both programs for consolidation into a product improvement program in FY 85.
In FY 84, the Army signed its second contract to procure 170 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicles. The first vehicle from the first procurement contract will be fielded in the fall of 1985.
The United States and the United Kingdom completed joint development of the M252 81-mm. mortar in July 1984. The British manufactured the mortar tubes and bipod, while the United States fabricated the sight systems and baseplates. Under the licensing agreement with the United Kingdom, the Army will purchase 4,000 mortars as well as explosive rounds before production begins in the United States. Army scientists developed smoke, illumination, and 1/10 range training rounds concurrently with the mortar development program. The Army will replace the M29 system with the M252 and will field it company-level in the standard and mechanized infantry H-series TOE units and at battalion-level in the light infantry, airborne, air assault, and mountain divisions.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense, on 6 October 1983, directed the Army, as executive agent for the Armed Services, to begin a program for procuring the authorized acquisition objective of the joint services' requirement for a new 9-mm. personnel defense system. The Army issued a request for test samples on 6 November and received 30 test samples from each of eight United States and foreign manufacturers on 31 January 1984. Testing of these weapons, using the M119M1 .45 caliber pistol as a baseline, began on 1 February 1984. The Army evaluated thirteen elements during the testing, which ended in September, and issued a final report on 24 September 1984.
Planners expected to begin procurement of the 9-mm. Beretta in December 1984.
International Research and Development
In November 1982, the U.S. Secretary of Defense advanced a proposal to improve the conventional defense capabilities of NATO by focusing on emerging technologies that would be developed by the early 1990s. During FY 84, the emerging technologies program crystallized into a set of eleven NATO projects, three of which were of particular interest to the U.S. Army: remotely piloted vehicles, multiple launch rocket system, and 155-mm. precision guided munitions.
The International Office, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, worked closely with the Department of Defense and the Netherlands to achieve an agreement on the use of the Netherlands Wind Tunnel as part of the U.S.-Dutch Patriot offset arrangement. Members of the International Office expected negotiations conducted between the United States and the Netherlands in March 1984 to lead to the signing of a contract in December 1984.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 8 March 2004