Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1981

11

Research, Development, and Acquisition

The Army's Research, Development, and Acquisition (RDA) effort suffered severe budget constraints until early 1981. Within lower-than-requested funding levels, the Army tried to create a balance to achieve as great a degree of near-term readiness, modernization, maintainability, and mobilization as possible. But, as stated by Lt. Gen. Donald B. Keith, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (DCSRDA), there were "significant shortcomings in each of these areas." During the early weeks of 1981 the new Reagan administration made significant changes in the budget request for fiscal year 1982. Within the revised budget, RDA dollars were substantially increased. The increase funded the most serious shortcomings. Specifically such programs as the M1 tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, Patriot, DIVAD, and Roland, to name a few, were in much better shape.

The initial approved program (IAP) for fiscal year 1981 was based on the President's budget of $4.234 billion, adjusted to reflect a "worst case" situation based on congressional actions of September 1980. In addition to deferrals for pending congressional reductions, constraints were placed on the Army research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) program by the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USDRE), who identified twenty-seven programs as being of special interest. These included defense research sciences, high-energy laser technology, the infantry man-portable antiarmor weapon (IMAAWS), identification friend or foe (IFF) radar development and equipment, division air defense command and control, Viper, aircraft electronic warfare self-protection system, NAVSTAR global positioning system, joint interoperability of tactical command and control system (JINTACCS), Chaparral, and joint tactical communications (TRI-TAC).

IAP deferrals totaled $601.8 million, of which $528.2 million was deferred by the Office, Secretary of Defense (OSD), and $73.6 million by the Department of the Army (DA). OSD deferrals included the following significant programs: ballistic missile defense (BMD) advanced technology ($10 million); BMD

[239]

systems technology ($30 million), IMAAWS ($21.3 million), SHORAD command and control ($15.4 million), tank gun ($57.2 million), and Chaparral ($20.8 million). DA deferrals included advanced attack helicopter (AAH) ($26.3 million), Hellfire ($10.3 million), DIVAD ($8 million), and SOTAS ($6.2 million).

The final RDTE&A appropriation, approved by Congress and signed by the President in late December 1980, amounted to $3.087 billion, $147 million less than the President requested. General reductions totaled $134 million, of which $120 million had been requested as a hedge against inflation. The remaining $14-million net reduction included program cuts of $151.4 million, which were largely offset by specific program increases of $137 million. Significant program changes included defense research sciences (-$12.4 million), missile and rocket components (+$6.2 million), high survivability test vehicle (+$25 million), commander's information executive system (-$8.4 million), Vulcan product improvement (+$9.6 million), advance rocket control system (+$29 million), corps support weapons system (+$7.2 million), Army helicopter improvement program (+$20.9 million), Hellfire fire and forget missile (+$6.9 million), and DARCOM ranges test facilities (-$10 million).

Based on guidelines of the new administration, a fiscal year 1981 supplemental was submitted to Congress in March 1981. This request reflected a net increase of $79.5 million to the appropriation, which was subsequently reduced to $41 million by congressional action. The major change imposed by Congress was disapproval of the $32-million increase requested for BMD systems technology. Three major fiscal year 1981 reprogrammings were approved by Congress during the year-interim tactical electronic processor (+$7.498 million), IFF development (+$2.5 million), and a classified project (+$2.2 million).

Zero-base budgeting remained the primary method for initial formulation of the RDTE&A budget request for fiscal year 1982 submitted to and reviewed by OSD and OMB during October and November 1980. OSD again expanded the Army's five-band presentation to eight bands for a more detailed display of RDTE&A programs.

The Army's RDTE&A budget request of $3.557 billion for fiscal year 1982 was submitted to Congress in January 1981. In March 1981, based on new administration guidance and submitted concurrently with the fiscal year 1981 supplemental request, an amended budget was proposed increasing the Army's RDTE&A fiscal year 1982 request to $3.905 billion. During the period, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees con-

[240]

sidered the revised 1982 budget request. A special amendment was proposed but not ready for submission until after the beginning of fiscal year 1982. As a result, neither the fiscal year 1982 authorization bill nor the appropriation bill had been cleared as of 30 September 1981.

At the close of the fiscal year, RDTE&A direct obligations represented 99.99 percent of fiscal year 1980 availability and 94.4 percent of fiscal year 1981 availability, both of which met or exceeded OSD goals. Overall RDTE&A disbursements for fiscal year 1980 were 92 percent and 57 percent for fiscal year 1981, both of which were within OSD goals.

Work began in the first quarter of fiscal year 1981 to develop the first HQDA Long Range RDA Plan (LRRDAP), which covered fiscal years 1983-1997. The objectives of the plan were to (1) provide a document that integrated RDA planning into the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS), (2) produce a coordinated plan that showed how the Army would develop and acquire materiel needed to fight in the 1990s and beyond, (3) create a mechanism to add stability to the RDA process, (4) invent a process that examined total resources available early in the development cycle, (5) provide additional focus for the Army's technology efforts, and (6) establish a link between the Army's five-year program and the period ten years beyond.

TRADOC and DARCOM provided user and developer input for the LRRDAP in January 1981 based on requirements developed from the TRADOC mission area analysis. ODCSOPS reviewed the information and assigned priorities, and then ODCSRDA formed a plan. The result, LRRDAP 83-97, was completed in July 1981. It consisted of two volumes. Volume I was a short summary-type document designed to be used by senior decision makers. Volume II contained the details of the plan. Work began on LRRDAP 84-98 in early July 1981, and a draft version was sent to users and developers for comment on 25 July 1981.

The Army has been using the total risk assessing cost estimate (TRACE) successfully for several years in research and development (R&D) to determine a project's budget. Nine Army R&D projects were funded in fiscal year 1981 using the TRACE budget concept. This year ODCSRDA initiated a study to evaluate the potential of applying the TRACE concept to procurement.

The obligation plan for the Army's procurement appropriation for fiscal year 1981 was $11.956 billion. This amount included $9.721 billion for direct Army procurement and $2.235 billion for reimbursable customer sales. The plan included all

[241]

fiscal year 1981 obligations from funds appropriated in fiscal years 1979, 1980, and 1981. Actual obligations fell short of the plan by $159.8 million-$173.8 million over the plan in direct funds and $333.6 million under for reimbursable funds. The lapse of funds for the expiring fiscal year 1979 program amounted to $108.9 million, which was $71.4 million in direct funds (including approximately $40 million for contingent liabilities) and $37.4 million in reimbursable funds.

Fiscal year 1981 saw significant improvement in funding for tactical and nontactical vehicle programs. The 1981 supplemental appropriation increased the budget for tactical wheeled vehicles from $226.9 million to $457.9 million. A five-year contract was signed with AM General Corporation on 8 April 1981 to produce 11,394 M939-series five-ton trucks, with an option to increase production by 100 percent each year. This vehicle will come in several different body styles: cargo, dump, tractor, van, and wrecker. The vehicles are urgently required to fill shortages in troops units, to meet interchange requirements (that is, support the fielding of new systems), and to fill POMCUS shortages. On 22 May 1981, a five-year contract was signed with Oshkosh Truck Corporation for 2,140 ten-ton trucks, with an option to increase production by 250 percent a year. This vehicle will come in cargo, tanker, recovery, and tractor versions. Additional competitive acquisition occurred for M915AI commercial line haul tractors and numerous trailers and nontactical vehicles, including a small number of personal security vehicles (armored sedans) for key commanders in Europe because of terrorist threats.

The 1981 summer studies of the Army Science Board and the Defense Science Board were "Equipping the Army in 19902000" and "Operational Readiness with High Performance Systems," respectively. The first provides recommendations to achieve a well-equipped, balanced force in the 1990s; the second provides recommendations to assist the Army in achieving acceptable operational readiness rates on its high performance systems.

The Army and the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) initiating the DOD terrain-analysis program. DMA will produce standard terrain analysis products while the Army will concentrate on turning out nonstandard terrain products for tactical and theater commanders. The Army submitted the first formal digital terrain data base

[242]

requirement to DMA to support weapons and intelligence systems. A prototype is being put together for testing at Fort Lewis, Washington, early next year. A significant updating of CONUS mapping requirements was made and submitted to DMA. Survey and assessment of all requirements was completed by subordinate commands and refined at the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (OACSI) to reduce many requirements and to gear mapping efforts toward priority operational plans and major training areas.

The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) started the airfield damage repair project for fiscal year 1981 by concentrating on two repair materials: a well-graded crushed limestone that would be capped, once bomb craters were filled, and a liquid grout and stone mixture that would harden after being placed in the damaged areas. These two methods provided an interim solution that met NATO requirements. Combat engineering units field-tested both methods with satisfactory results.

A proposal to redirect the airfield damage repair project called for backfilling the bombed crater with debris, cutting the jagged crater edges to uniform size, and then placing prefabricated matting or concrete slabs as the surface layer rather than using a limestone and grout-stone fill. Advantages of the proposed method would include less work and fewer personnel, greater permanency, all-weather application, and faster repair completion. WES is currently investigating the possibility of perfecting water jet cutters so that they can cut the thick concrete required.

The U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Survey jointly sponsored the Atlantic Remote Sensing Land-Ocean experiment (ARSLOE) during October and November 1980. Working groups from federal agencies and official participants from Canada, France, Japan, and Norway converged on CERC's Field Research Facility (FRF) at Duck, North Carolina, for a two-month research effort to gain knowledge on how ocean waves are transformed as they move to shore, to improve storm prediction techniques, and to verify data collection methods. Both traditional oceanographic meters and the more recent remote sensing technology were included among the sensors used in ARSOLE. Three test sites were used during the experiment: the Elizabeth City area for land features, the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay for ocean fronts, and the FRF facility pier at Duck for waves. During the experiment a storm blew up on 23 October that lasted five days. Researchers now

[243]

have a "captured" storm, well documented with growth and decay of waves, energy transfer, and the effect of winds blowing with and against the direction of the waves. This represents unique data for use in oceanographic research.

The first of a series of field experiments, Snow-One, was conducted from 5 January to 13 February 1981. The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire, carried out the field experiment at Camp Ethan Allen Training Center in Vermont. Other Army commands and centers participated, as well as Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and academic and commercial research laboratories. Snow-One gave electro-optical systems researchers, developers, and managers an opportunity to establish an initial performance data base and to evaluate developmental hardware in a wet, cold environment. Measurements were made under conditions of rain, fog, and wet and dry snowfalls.

Results of Snow-One indicated that visibility through far infrared transmission appeared to be equally affected by falling snow; snow cover could pose a problem to both infrared and near millimeter-wave target location and tracking systems; transportation and operation of modular universal laser equipment was very difficult under winter conditions; and performance of the state-of-the-art snow characterization instrumentation used was excellent.

A variety of factors provided impetus to the BMD research and development program this year. Some of these factors were the growing uncertainty of this nation's ability to influence the buildup of Soviet strategic weapons through negotiation, an increased awareness at all government levels of the BMD potential and the significant contributions it could make in the offensive defensive strategic equation, confidence based on successful experimental and analytical verification of BMD concepts and hardware since the deactivation of the Safeguard system in 1976, and the decision to proceed with full-scale engineering development of the Air Force MX system. The BMD organization, in its research and development efforts, emphasized the more advanced, maturing projects in both the Advanced Technology and Systems Technology Programs.

The efforts of the more mature Advanced Technology Program included the designating optical tracker program, the endoatmospheric nonnuclear kill program, the forward acquisition

[244]

program, the optical aircraft measurements program, the miniature kill vehicle technology program, investigation of directed energy weapons, investigation of the applicability of distributed data processing, preparation of a millimeter-wave radar, and preparation of the Cobra Judy.

The designating optical tracker program provided data to verify the capability of long wavelength infrared sensors to perform generic BMD functions of designation and tracking under realistic conditions of engagement and the environment. Four flights in the program have successfully deployed the sensor above the atmosphere and obtained the required data on reentry targets. In fiscal year 1981 plans were completed for the remaining flights. Plans were also developed for future use of the program hardware.

The purpose of the endoatmospheric nonnuclear kill program is to establish a coordinated technology base to demonstrate a homing guided intercept and nonnuclear kill of representative reentry vehicles in the endoatmosphere. The BMD Advanced Technology Center (BMDATC), faced with budget cuts and other priorities for fiscal years 1981 and 1982, reduced this program to development of critical component hardware. Development of critical component hardware progressed, as did the effort to upgrade the three-degrees-of-freedom simulation to a six-degrees-of-freedom high fidelity simulation. BMDATC initiated design and validation of a gas reaction maneuver control system and began warhead-target interaction ground rocket sled tests.

The forward acquisition system program showed progress. The program is an integrated technology effort designed to resolve critical system and technology issues associated with the BMD forward acquisition function through a comprehensive ground test program. All necessary hardware was placed under contract and an integration contractor selected. The contractor will also furnish a wide-field-of-view, long-way infrared test chamber.

The miniature kill vehicle program, which ended this fiscal year, developed solutions to technology issues concerning application of the homing interceptor (spinning kill vehicle) concept. This year's effort demonstrated that the regenerative piston injection liquid propulsion engine would meet requirements of mission durability and spin environment. Designs were completed for both a tactical tracking sensor and a data processing system to permit vehicle operation in high-target density and nuclear environments. The kill vehicle requirements were updated con-

[245]

currently with evolving threat descriptions, and a miniature kill vehicle responsive to the scenarios was designed.

Directed energy weapons exploiting either high-energy laser or particle beam technology have considerable potential for future BMD application. Space, aircraft, ground, and hybrid basing concepts have been investigated. Army BMD interest focused on space-based concepts offering unique potential for the engagement and destruction of both intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and sea-launched ballistic missiles. BMDATC analyses indicated a definite preference for use of space-based directed energy weapons as the leading edge of a multiple-layer defense system. These investigations emphasized the use of high-energy lasers because of a lag (on a relative basis) in particle beam technology. Using simulated ICBM components, the BMDATC successfully demonstrated viable kill mechanisms for the space-based laser. A number of high-energy laser candidates have been identified which, if successfully developed, could provide the basis for major increases in the cost-effectiveness of any future BMD space-based laser system. In addition to this high-energy laser activity, BMDATC continued to serve as technical manager and procurement agent for two efforts in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's particle beam program: the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory exoatmospheric neutral particle beam accelerator program and the Austin Research Associates collective ion accelerator proof-of-principle experiment.

BMDATC directed research to exploit, for BMD applications, the many potential advantages of the distributed data processing computer concept, such as increased throughput, availability, reliability, fail-soft capability, growth capability, and load sharing. Also investigated was use of distributed systems of microprocessors interconnected with various schema. A six-micro-processor by-twelve-memory-board distributed data processing system connected by a crossbar switch was implemented, and testing was initiated. Investigation began of designs for ring and banyan interconnected systems. At BMDATC's Advance Research Center, the Control Data Corporation 6400/7600 mainframe computers were augmented with ten VAX 11/780 minicomputers to provide a distributed data processing capability. This testbed was used to support multiple concurrent BMD distributed data processing experiments in hardware architecture, algorithm development, and software engineering. Significant progress was made in the development of a computer-aided design system to support development of high quality software for BMD systems, which

[246]

will most likely require fault tolerance and a high degree of flexibility.

In fiscal year 1981 component development and fabrication continued on a millimeter-wave radar for use at Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) in collecting data on BMD targets. Major components, procured and tested in the continental United States, were shipped to Roi-Namur Island. Installation of the antenna tower and radome support was completed in July 1981. Late delivery of drive gears for the gear boxes delayed shipment of the pedestal and caused a slippage in the original operational date for the radar.

Preparation of Cobra Judy, a shipborne S-band radar signature collection system to provide intelligence data for the U.S. Air Force Foreign Technology Division (FTD) and the BMDATC, also continued. For this effort, jointly funded by the Air Force Systems Command and the BMDATC, the U.S.S. Observation Island has been outfitted and made seaworthy. It now meets all the standards required for the Cobra Judy platform. Construction of a radar array turret was completed in 1981, and all electronic, computer, and recording equipment was installed on board the ship.

Major activity in the Systems Technology Program focused on the definition and development of systems for two principal efforts: the endoatmospheric low-altitude defense (LOAD) system and the homing overlay experiment (HOE) with technology for an exoatmospheric interceptor. The Systems Technology Project Office (STPO) of the BMD Systems Command also worked toward integration of endoatmospheric and exoatmospheric concepts into a layered defense system and toward the collection of data to support systems studies and concept evaluations.

Design and development of the HOE, a two-phase demonstration to prove technology associated with an exoatmospheric interceptor, showed significant progress. Critical design reviews of flight experiment equipment and various hardware flight items were completed and fabrication of flight hardware was begun. Development testing and manufacture of the first HOE flight experiment units were completed for the axial propulsion system, the fixed-fragment-net kill mechanism, and the back-up kill mechanism. Fabrication of the first HOE interceptor flight hardware (FB-1) was initiated. The HOE simulation laboratory facility was completed for validating the HOE flight software by exercising flight experiment hardware and software in a dynamic hardware in-the-loop simulation. Testing of the HOE flight experiment hardware was begun during the last quarter of the fiscal year.

[247]

Engineering and development problems appeared in the sensor, requiring extensive management reviews and resulting in cost growth to Lockheed's contract, but no delay in the HOE flight experiment schedule. The design development hardware performed successfully in laboratory tests for flight vibration; however, difficulties continued in the development of the test hardware for design verification.

All activities relating to KMR preparations for the HOE were on schedule. A missile access stand obtained from the Navy's Polaris program with Lockheed was shipped to KMR and erected on Meck Island. Ground support equipment for the HOE booster, a modified Minuteman I, was shipped from Hill Air Force Base. Using test launch software at Lockheed's Missile Space Center; Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas completed integration tests to verify that the equipment was compatible with the interceptor ground test unit.

The LOAD system, expected to be valuable in defending either the MX missile or silo-based ICBMs, gained attention and support from both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Congress. Early in the year, the Secretary of Defense approved increased funding by approximately $346 million to ensure LOAD compatibility with the MX missile; later, Congress authorized an additional $15 million in fiscal year 1981 funds to protect the option of accelerating LOAD development.

The BMD organization and the Air Force Ballistic Missile Office worked together to ensure LOAD-MX compatibility. The two signed a memorandum of agreement on 7 October 1980 which established a formal relationship, outlined policy and responsibilities, and provided for the exchange of technical, operational, and program information. Similar relations were established with the Air Force's Strategic Air Command and Test and Evaluation Command. Later in the year, ties were formed with the Defense Nuclear Agency for coordination and resolution of LOAD technical issues and with the Department of Energy (DOE) for a joint feasibility study on a nuclear warhead for the LOAD interceptor.

In November 1980, the BMD Systems Command changed the acquisition strategy for the LOAD effort from an associate contractor structure to a prime and subcontractor structure. McDonnell Douglas received the prime contract; Martin Marietta Aerospace, Orlando, and the Raytheon Company received major subcontracts for the interceptor and the sensor and engagement controller efforts, respectively.

Testing to refine LOAD definition and development pro-

[248]

gressed. High explosive testing was performed on a scale model of the LOAD defense unit, and wind tunnel testing was done on the interceptor airframe configuration. The signature measurement radar installed at KMR to gather X-band signature data on incoming objects from ICBM flights was also tested. The radar successfully tracked and recorded data on a decoy that was specifically designed and flown for the test.

The preservation of location uncertainty (PLU) effort was marked by closer cooperation between the Air Force's MX program and the Army's BMD LOAD program. LOAD representatives participated as full members on all Air Force PLU working groups. Definition of PLU requirements for LOAD also received special attention in BMD studies.

Definition of a BMD layered defense system continued. Recent studies considered exoatmospheric, infrared nonnuclear interceptor technologies, as well as deep endoatmospheric, small radar, nuclear and nonnuclear interceptor technologies. A major study called "BMD Systems for the Nineties" added some credence to earlier assumptions that technology for exoatmospheric defense could be integrated into a tactical system in time to counter the threat projected for the coming decade, provided such developments were successful. The Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering requested a BMD concepts study that would rely on a terminal endoatmospheric defense with an early deployment capability and low technological risk.

Because of the complexity and expense of existing overlay concepts, the BMD program manager formed a task force to study overlay concepts which were less costly and less complex. 'The possibility of a national decision to base the first MX ICBMs in silos rather than in multiple protective shelters underscored the need for an efficient defense system that could balance the advantages of advanced technologies with the demands of a deployment schedule like that of the MX missile. These requirements, together with the possibility of an early development of a robust terminal defense underlay, led to several new overlay concepts still in the formulation stage.

Results of the "Low Altitude Perturbation Study" funded by BMD through the Air Force's Foreign Technology Division, Wright Patterson AFB, were presented at BMD Systems Command (BMDSCOM) on 10 October 1980. A follow-up meeting held at McDonnell Douglas on 15 October 1980 completed low altitude trajectory data requirements for LOAD radar data processing specifications and analysis. On 16 April 1981 representatives of Sandia National Laboratories, BMDSCOM, and the

[249]

BMD contractors reviewed "white papers" on projected maneuverable reentry vehicle (MARV) and antiradiation homer (ARH) threats. The MARV document has been completed and distributed; the ARH document has been delayed pending definition of LOAD program changes. The STPO Threat Office, Overlay Demonstration Task Force, and ATC personnel met with supporting contractors on 2-3 September 1981 and completed "Threat Parameters for Overlay Ballistic Missile Defense." This document defines the threat parameters for use in analyzing defense concepts considered in overlay BMD. Comparative BMD capabilities (red-blue) analysis continued to provide Soviet BMD information to support the BMD program manager at congressional and related briefings.

The STPO Weapons Office updated and published a two volume document in August 1981 that gave technical information on preferred life cycle hardening design and updated techniques to be avoided. Warhead lethality analyses were accomplished in support of the joint DOD-DOE Phase 2 Warhead Study for LOAD initiated in January 1981; lethality contours were developed for combinations of threat models and four different generic defense warhead types. The Attack Working Group of the Weapons Office completed an overlay laydown definition analysis and published the results. Laydown analyses are currently in progress with regard to the new LOAD concept definition.

During fiscal year 1981, Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) supported development and operational testing of U.S. Air Force ICBMs and payloads launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The operational tests comprised various Minuteman III operational configurations; the development tests included nose tip evaluations, various decoy configurations, and maneuvering vehicles. The fourth Army designating optical tracker mission was also launched from KMR. The Army Optical Station on Roi-Namur was closed at the end of the fiscal year.

Most of the modifications to the Army's long-range tracking and instrumentation radar (ALTAIR) to make it a contributing sensor to the Air Force Space Detection and Tracking System (SPADATS) were completed during fiscal year 1981. The interim system, which performs satellite catalog maintenance and detects new foreign launches, became operational.

During fiscal year 1981, construction began on a millimeter-wave radar, which had been under development since fiscal year 1979. It will be an adjunct to the ALCOR C-band radar system and will provide 35 GHz and 95 GHz radar capability along with a 95 GHz radiometer capability.

[250]

Participants in the triservice Strategic Systems Test Support Study (SSTSS) developed an overall approach ensuring nonredundant, cost-effective, responsive support for testing offensive and defensive systems in both the Atlantic and Pacific. They recommended retention of KMR as a terminal area testing asset, but identified a contingency instrumented test area in the Pacific, in the event that the Kwajalein atoll became unavailable. The study group assessed the present KMR midatoll corridor boundaries and decided to retain them. A broad ocean area terminal scoring point would be developed north of Roi-Namur for MX testing. A terminal area support aircraft (TASA)-a modified C7A Caribou logistics support aircraft-would provide a surface missile impact location systems (SMILS), terminal telemetry, and optics data collection in lieu of P-3A/SMILS aircraft. Tugboats at KMR would be used to place and maintain deep ocean transponders in the KMR North array. The participants briefed the Deputy Director, Defense Test and Evaluation (DDTE), and the Major Range and Test Facility Committee on 24 July 1981.

Low-rate initial production of the M1 Abrams tank program continued during fiscal year 1981 as did development test II. Operational test II was completed on 29 May 1981. The special meeting of the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) on 17 February 1981 changed the M 1 tank type classification from limited production to standard. Later in fiscal year 1981 the Army sought the authority from OSD to enter full production. From June through August 1981, a group of industrial, scientific, and technical leaders convened for the third time to assess the current status of the tanks' power-train durability. The panel's assessment was that once corrective action already identified was completed, power-train durability should meet or exceed the Army's requirements on tanks produced after March 1982. The Army and OSD conducted detailed program reviews on the production status and test results of the M1 during August and September 1981. Based on these reviews, the OSD authorized the Army to enter full production. In March, two M1 tanks were modified to accept the 120-mm. tank gun system, and contractor testing was begun. Development of 120-mm. ammunition continued. On 15 September 1981, final composition of the first block improvement package was approved. Concurrently, because of technical problems in ammunition development, initial production delivery of the M1E1 Abrams tank (the 120-mm.-

[251]

equipped M1 tank) slipped from August 1984 to the last quarter of fiscal year 1985. Specifications on the M1E1 Abrams tank were expanded to include the M1 tank with block-1 improvements as well as the 120-mm. tank main armament system (XM256).

The Infantry-Cavalry Fighting Vehicles were renamed the Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The fiscal year 1981 program fully supported the continued development of the logistics, training, and maintenance support packages of the two systems. The Army received four production vehicles during fiscal year 1981. Three underwent testing by the contractor; the fourth was used for development and testing of automated test measurements and diagnostic equipment (TMDE).

Development and testing of the tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided (TOW) 2 missile system was completed in July 1981. The TOW 2 system included an improved missile with a six-inch diameter warhead and improvements to the missile guidance systems. Following development and operational tests, a review was conducted at Headquarters, Department of the Army, with the result that the TOW 2 system was classified as standard type, and full production was authorized.

Engineering and testing of modifications for the improved TOW vehicle (ITV) to fire TOW 2 missiles at full effectiveness were completed during fiscal year 1981. The modification has been approved for production and application to the entire TOW vehicle fleet.

The goal of the infantry man-portable antiarmor assault weapon system (IMAAWS) program is to produce a lightweight, high performance, man-portable replacement for the Dragon missile system. The IMAAWS is also intended to be the U.S. component of a cooperative development program with three other NATO partners to replace current antiarmor weapons. In September 1980 contracts were awarded to Honeywell and McDonnell Douglas to design, build, and deliver a number of advance-development prototype systems to be tested with elements of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Tank Breaker program.

One month later the Army canceled the contracts because of concern over the weight and bulk of the proposed systems. A study was undertaken to review IMAAWS requirements and to revise its description as appropriate. Completed in April 1981, the study results were inconclusive and led to the withdrawal of funds for critical technology development as well as the reallocation of IMAAWS program funds in the outyears to other higher-priority programs, and adversely affected the Tank

[252]

Breaker program. During the summer, Congress denied funding requested for IMAAWS in fiscal year 1982. At the Army Senior National Representatives (SNR) meeting in September 1981 at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., the European partners in the cooperative development program for antiarmor weapons expressed concern over the continued delay in the U.S. part of the program.

Development of the squad automatic weapon (SAW) system continued during fiscal year 1981. Modifications to the system were assessed, and performance with improved ammunition was evaluated. The Fabrique National (FN) XM249 weapon was modified to incorporate the changes recommended during the selection process. Testing of the improved weapon (XM249E1) and ammunition (XM855 and XM856) began in June 1981 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Initial test data confirmed that the weapon system will meet or exceed user requirements. Also during fiscal year 1981, the integrated logistics support package was refined; additional work was accomplished on the final license agreement, which was submitted to the contractor for final signature; and preliminary work was done to prepare the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant for production.

A highly successful, competition for the division air defense (DIVAD) gun contract between Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation and General Dynamics was concluded in May 1981. The Army awarded a contract to construct facilities with three follow-up production options to Ford Aerospace. The corporation began construction of a new facility for DIVAD gun production and worked on final production design.

The Army awarded an advanced development and low-rate production contract for the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) to the Vought Corporation in October 1980. Maturation phase development, improved warhead, and practice warhead design flight tests of the basic system were conducted during fiscal year 1981. Program funding was increased by the fiscal year 1981 supplemental and fiscal year 1982 amendment to the President's budget. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers went on strike against FMC, maker of the MLRS carrier vehicle, on 4 April 1981. The strike was-settled on 17 June, and work resumed on 22 June 1981. The FMC strike resulted in a four-month slip in MLRS program schedules as well as a cost increase in both development and procurement funding requirements.

The Pershing II weapon system continued in engineering development during fiscal year 1981. Two major technical problems

[253]

arose, one in the magnetron and the other in the thrust reversal system, and were solved. The proposed fiscal year 1982 Pershing II production buy, including a fiscal year 1983 option, was received from Martin Marietta. The proposed price exceeded the fiscal year 1982 funding allocated for the Martin contract. At the close of fiscal year 1981, intensive effort and analysis were under way to evaluate fully the contractor's proposal.

The Army's advanced attack helicopter (AAH) program entered the final stages of development in fiscal year 1981. In anticipation of future fielding, the Army approved the name of Apache for the AAH. The Army conducted a comprehensive operational test (OT II) in June-August 1981 at Fort Hunter-Liggett, California. Results indicated that the AH-64 was ready for production. Contracts were awarded to Hughes Helicopters, Martin Marietta, and General Electric for procuring hardware items with long lead-times.

In fiscal year 1981 full-scale engineering development began of an infrared capability for the Cobra sight. This innovation will enable the gunner to detect and engage targets at night and during periods of poor visibility.

Production of the UH-60A Black Hawk continued during fiscal year 1981 with 105 aircraft delivered to the Army. The fifth-year production contract for 80 helicopters was awarded to Sikorsky Aircraft Division, United Technologies Corporation, in May 1981. Production of T700 GE-700 engines also continued. On 2 February, General Electric Company received a firm fixed price contract for 204 engines. The Black Hawk program was selected as the Army's prime candidate for multiyear procurement in fiscal year 1982. The required documentation was prepared and submitted to OSD.

The CH-47 modernization program continued on schedule. Following the contract award to the Boeing Vertol Company in late October 1980, conversion on nine CH-47A helicopters to the much improved CH-47D model was begun. Two of the three prototypes were returned to the manufacturer for use as production mock-ups and as guides for writing technical manuals. The third prototype underwent extended maintenance testing, and no significant problems were found.

The request for proposal (RFP) for the near-term scout helicopter (NTSH) of the Army helicopter improvement program (AHIP) was formulated, circulated for comment, evaluated, reviewed, and finally released to industry in January 1981. The Army convened a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) to consider the two responses from industry-from Bell Helicopter

[254]

Textron and from Hughes Helicopter, Inc. On 21 September 1981 the Army announced the award of a full-scale engineering development (FSED) contract for the AHIP's near-term scout helicopter to Bell Helicopter Textron.

Engineering development of the Hellfire modular missile system continued through fiscal year 1981, with contracts for items with long lead-times awarded during August 1981 in preparation for fiscal year 1982 production. Hellfire underwent 19 firings in the developmental test (DT) program, 27 firings in the AAH DT program, 4 firings in the Marine Corps laser designator operational test (OT), 12 AAH OT firings, and 33 missile firings in Hellfire OT. During the year, 42 missiles were produced under the engineering development contract. In preparation for ASARC-DSARC III, cost reduction efforts were investigated and required documentation was gathered in the Army and OSD.

The Defense System Acquisition Review council (DSARC) authorized Patriot to begin limited production in August 1980. The Secretary of Defense decision memorandum (SDDM) from the DSARC specified a series of verification tests to show that deficiencies had been corrected. The primary effort during fiscal year 1981 was conducting the first three of four unit tests specified by the SDDM. In each case the results indicated that the specified criteria had been achieved, and authorization was given for the Army to proceed with the agreed test programs. During the fiscal year 1982 budget process, the Army requested funds to allow a limited increase in Patriot production. Based on the testing success, Congress approved the request.

Contracts for the U.S. Roland air defense missile system were awarded to Hughes and Boeing on 10 December 1980 for 17 fire units and 400 missiles, with associated support equipment and spares. The Roland reliability evaluation test was successfully completed on 15 December 1980, and special evaluation tests were also successfully carried out at the White Sands Missile Range on 30 March 1981. A test and evaluation review was held on 8 May 1981 on the results of the meeting of the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC) III held in May 1979. Favorable test results and successful completion of all OSD action items resulting from the May 1979 DSARC III indicated that no technical or test issues remained. The first four production missiles were delivered to the government on 26 June 1981. The first Roland production fire unit was completed on 30 September 1981. Hughes was awarded a contract for the Roland trainer on 24 March 1981.

The Stinger passive optical seeker technique (POST) contin-

[255]

ued in engineering development during the year. POST contractor flight testing began in January 1981. Five flights were made during the year with the remainder scheduled for completion by early 1982. The development schedule was extended to sixty-three months because of difficulties in integrating and testing the sealed head and guidance electronics and in solving several anomalies detected during flight testing. These technical difficulties were successfully overcome.

During fiscal year 1981 USAREUR and FORSCOM reached agreement on the IHawk enhancement life cycle program (HELP). The Department of the Army approved the program, which will recycle missiles through the factory for reliability restoration and for the application of missile electronic counter countermeasure (ECM) improvements. Restoration began in September 1981. As a result of the air defense systems program review in February 1981, U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM) took the lead in promoting logistical and technical support to the U.S. Marine Corps and to international users of the IHawk system and formed a study group to develop a proposed long-range support plan.

Chaparral is the Army's short-range air defense (SHORAD) surface-to-air missile system. The major development effort for the Chaparral's forward-looking infrared (FLIR) night sight was completed in 1981. The effort culminated in the users operational test at White Sands Missile Range beginning in August. FLIR will help the Chaparral gunner to find his target during the day, at night, and in severe weather, whereas the Chaparral is currently limited to fair weather, daylight operation.

Viper antiarmor rocket development was completed during fiscal year 1981. The Viper tactical rocket and the tracer bullet trainer were type-classified as standard in August 1981, following a DARCOM in-process review and a decision by the VCSA. Operational test II was successfully completed in July 1981. As the fiscal year drew to a close, the Army was seeking congressional approval to produce Viper.

The year began with a continuation of the shakedown of the Copperhead initial production facility (IPF) and negotiations for the second-year production contract with Martin Marietta Corporation, the system developer. The IPF was completed in April 1981 and thirty-seven rounds were delivered for testing. As the year closed, production of related hardware items began, and major initiatives to reduce unit costs and to enhance reliability got under way.

Development of binary retaliatory weapons resumed in fiscal

[256]

year 1981. Binary munitions provide significant advantages over existing chemical munitions in terms of manufacturing, storage, transportation, and disposal. Research is under way on demilitarization of present stocks and on a binary modernization program to correct stockpile deficiencies of agent mix and ammunition type. Advanced development on the binary intermediate volatility agent (IVA) warhead for the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) was also resumed. In addition, the eight inch IVA binary projectile began advanced development after a decision was made to redirect the effort from an eight-inch VX2 projectile to the more promising IVA concept. Congress appropriated $23 million to start construction and to provide initial equipment for an integrated binary munition production facility. Construction on the facility at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, was scheduled to begin in October 1981. Development continued on a new protective mask and on numerous biological and chemical detection and warning systems, items of collective protective equipment for shelters, vans and tactical armored vehicles, as well as decontamination systems for clothing and a rapid decontamination system for armored vehicles.

The family of scatterable mines includes four separate systems: (1) the 155-mm. artillery-delivered antipersonnel, area-denial artillery munition (ADAM) and the remote antiarmor mine (RAAM); (2) the ground-emplaced mine scattering system (GEMSS); (3) the modular pack mine system (MOPMS); and (4) the Gator scatterable mine system, a joint service venture funded and managed by the Air Force and developed by the Army. Development of all four systems continued on schedule in fiscal year 1981. ADAM and RAAM, in low-rate production, were approved for full-scale production by the validation in-process review. Under GEMSS, first-year production of the M128 ground dispenser and the M75 antitank mine continued, and the M74 antipersonnel mine entered first-year production. MOPMS continued in engineering development, overcoming some technical problems with the electronic components. Final Gator engineering development remained on schedule with the delivery of operational test hardware to the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy.

Army efforts to broaden the high-energy laser technology base continued in the areas of laser energy devices, fire control and acquisition, optics, beam control and propagation, damage and vulnerability, and advanced directed-energy technology. The Army initiated two programs to provide an early demonstration of the system's capability upon which to base future decisions concerning laser weapon systems. The draft proposal for the

[257]

demonstrator of the forward area laser weapon was released for comment to industry and to government agencies in January 1981. Contracts were awarded to Hughes Aircraft Company and TRW for competitive preliminary designs on 31 July 1981. Technical requirement reviews for these preliminary designs were held during August 1981. The Roadrunner draft proposal was released for comment to industry and government agencies in April 1981, and the source selection evaluation board met on 21 September 1981.

The second production contract for the ground laser locator designator (GLLD) was let on 30 October 1980. This procurement calls for production of eighty units, using fiscal year 1980 funding. An option for follow-up production of an additional ninety units, under the fiscal year 1981 appropriation, was signed on 4 December 1980. Delivery and testing of the units procured under fiscal year 1979 appropriations began during fiscal year 1981.

Production continued on the AN/TAS-4 (TOW), AN/TAS5 (Dragon), and the AN/TAS-6 (night observation device, long range). New production contracts were awarded to Texas Instruments Inc. and to Kollman Instruments Corp. to maintain a competitive base for future contracts. Contracts were also let for production of supporting equipment: A memorandum of understanding among three NATO nations for the sale and cooperative production of infrared common modules was nearing completion and should be signed soon.

Production continued on second-generation image-intensification night sights-the AN/PVS-4 (individual-served weapon sight), the AN/TVS-5 (crew-served weapon sight), and the AN/PVS-5 (night vision goggles). Work continued on third-generation image-intensification devices. The aviators night-vision imaging system (AN/AVS-6) was moving forward in engineering development, while the night vision goggles for ground troops completed advanced development.

An intense effort to identify cost alternatives for the standoff target acquisition system (SOTAS), to be reviewed by the Army Systems Acquisition Review Committee (ASARC) and the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC), took place between November 1980 and April 1981. The objective was to correct the original underestimate of development time and effort and to set new and realistic program objectives. The ASARC review was held on 17 April 1981, and the review by the DSARC on 21 May 1981. A special task force of the Defense Science Board, meeting on 12 and 13 June 1981, concluded that

[258]

SOTAS was needed and was technically feasible. In late July OSD directed the Army to conduct a sixty-day review to find further program options for reducing acquisition costs. The review indicated that reducing the number of airborne systems to be procured from eighty-two to sixty-one and simplifying the radar would save approximately 24 percent in acquisition. It was also proposed that significant portions of the remaining development be put on a fixed-price basis. When negotiations with Motorola, the prime contractor, failed to produce agreement on a fixed price contract, the Army proposed that radar development be resolicited. The matter had not been resolved by the end of the fiscal year.

Development continued on the improved 155-mm. nuclear projectile. A significant technological breakthrough was achieved in bonding the rotating band to a thin-shell titanium body. A program was instituted to test the projectile in NATO howitzers and to develop firing tables. Planned procurement was increased to meet the minimum Army requirement. Capitalization funds supporting the 155-mm. development were cut because Congress was skeptical about the need to have modern nuclear projectiles for both the 8-inch and 155-mm. howitzer systems. Options aimed at reducing the impact of the budget cut were being reviewed as the fiscal year ended.

On 7 July 1981, development contracts amounting to approximately $4 million each were awarded to AM General Corporation, Chrysler Defense Incorporated, and Teledyne Continental Motors for development by each of eleven high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) prototypes. The HMMWV will replace the M561 Gama Goat and the M274 Mule and will selectively replace M 151 quarter-ton utility vehicles in tactically demanding environments such as TOW weapons carrier.

Over the past year the RSI program has expanded to emphasize training and to implement the NATO Mutual Support Act of 1979 (PL 96-323). Emphasis has continued on strengthening the NATO long-term defense program (LTDP).

Two significant events took place during the year concerning NATO's international cooperative research and development. The first was the Four Power Senior National Representatives (SNR) meeting on 16-18 September 1981 in Washington, D.C.

[259]

The other was the election for the first time of a U.S. general officer to chair the NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG).

The September 1981 SNR meeting, the eighth in a series that began in fiscal year 1977, approved the release of threat data on Soviet tank and antiarmor weapons jointly developed by the four powers as well as the release of additional information about the Soviet threat that the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany intend using to support future antiarmor weapons development. The data will be disseminated to other NATO countries as well. In addition the four powers signed a memorandum of understanding in April 1981, providing for reciprocity of information on improvements in the current generation of antitank guided weapons. For the United States, this involved an exchange of data on improvement of the TOW and Dragon antitank missiles. The Europeans are to provide information on the improvement of the HOT (Haut Subsonique Optiquement Teleguide tire d'un Tube) and the MILAN (Missile d'Infanterie Leger Antichar).

The United States in June 1981 said that it would nominate someone for the election of a new chairman of the NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG). Subsequently, at its thirty-eighth meeting, the NAAG elected a U.S. general officer, the Deputy Director of the Weapons Systems Directorate, ODCSRDA, to the post. His term will expire in fiscal year 1983.

The U.S. Army also carried on staff talks with the military representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom with primary emphasis on the development of combat doctrine and materiel requirements. An ad hoc committee began a NATO ammunition interagency review under the auspices of the NATO Army Board. In March 1981 all members of NATO endorsed this effort. Conversion of jet fuels from JP4 to JP-8 within NATO was still being considered by the fuels working group of the Ad Hoc Committee on Equipment Interoperability. Cost and availability remained the main obstacles to full-scale conversion. The Army continued to participate in the American, British, Canadian, and Australian (ABCA) standardization program and was the host for the first meeting of the ABCA working group on collaborative training in April at Orlando, Florida. The Army also sent a delegation headed by the Vice Chief of Staff to the twenty-third meeting of the high-level ABCA conference known as TEAL, held in Montreal, Canada, in October. The conferees discussed means to extend and improve ABCA standardization efforts for fiscal years 1982-1983.

In other RSI developments, the Joint Roland Committee held

[260]

a special meeting in Paris, France, on 20-21 November 1980. Trinational agreement (U.S., French, and German) was reached on potential system modifications to be investigated for incorporation into the Roland weapon system to counter the post-1985 threat. In 1981 Germany joined with six other NATO nations (Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, Greece, Turkey, and Italy) and formed a project group to study alternative forms of acquiring Stinger by a multinational consortium. A memorandum of understanding for NATO coproduction was submitted to OSD for staffing in July 1981. Foreign country interest in the Improved Hawk (IHawk) continued in fiscal year 1981. After a two-year hiatus clearance was obtained for travel to Taiwan, and two trips were made this year which significantly improved communications and progress of the Taiwan program. A letter of agreement was forwarded to the Arab Republic of Egypt at their request. The Egypt Improved Hawk program is proceeding on schedule. In October 1980 a contract was signed with Maschinenfabrik Augsburg Nurnberg for fifteen vehicles for Pershing II (PII) and the ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with an option for additional vehicles to support PII and GLCM fielding.

[261]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 17 September 2004