Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1980
Research, Development, and Acquisition
Planning and Budgeting
During 1980 the Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ODCSRDA), in conjunction with the Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS), continued building the essential elements of a long range RDA planning program. Phase I, mission area analyses, was completed by TRADOC. Science and technology plans compatible with the analyses were developed by the U.S. Army Materiel and Readiness Command in response to ODCSRDA planning guidance. Development of a planning data base was begun by the RDA Information Systems Agency (RDAISA) to support the long range plan. Establishment of the long range RDA planning process should result in early identification of system funding requirements to support the Army of the future and to provide a stable baseline against which constancy of requirements may be measured over a multiyear period.
The initial approved Army research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) program for fiscal year 1980 was based on the President’s budget. As in the previous fiscal year, it included constraints placed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USDRE), who identified certain program elements as being of special interest. Total programs in funding categories 6.1 and 6.2 were designated of USDRE interest in order to maintain the approved dollar levels for these categories. In addition, twenty-six specific programs were identified as being of special interest; funds cannot be shifted from these programs without prior approval from OUSDRE. These included defense research sciences, high energy laser technology, aircraft survivability/EW self-protection system, NAVSTAR global positioning system, major RDTE facilities of DARCOM, IFF (identification, friend or foe) developments, and unattended ground sensors.
Deferrals totaled $406 million. Office of the Secretary of Defense deferrals amounted to $324 million and included BMD (ballistic missile defense) advanced technology, $10.0 million; BMD systems technology, $30.0 million; IFF developments, $3.4 million; advanced scout helicopter, $12.5 million; and tactical data systems interoperability, $4.0 million. Army deferrals based on TRACE (total risk assessing cost estimates) and congressional reprogramming actions totaled another $82 million. Some of the significant program deferrals were command and control $8.7 million; TRACE, $58.6
million; CH-47 modernization, $2.5 million; aircraft EW self-protection equipment, $3.5 million.
The Department of the Army research and development budget, approved by Congress for fiscal year 1980, was $2,855.3 million, a reduction of $102.7 million in the Army’s RDTE request of $2,958.0 million. The authorization bill, however, required a fund transfer of $10.1 million from RDTE to OMA (operation and maintenance, Army) as a studies and analysis offset to a congressional reduction in the OMA appropriation. The initial approved RDTE program was, therefore, $2,845.2 million. A supplemental authorization subsequently increased the fiscal year 1980 RDTE budget by $1.2 million to $2,846.4 million. The supplemental was requested as an offset to the rapid escalation of POL (petroleum, oils and lubricants) costs during early fiscal year 1980 and to inflation increases.
The Army’s fiscal year 1981 RDTE budget request of $3,504.8 million was submitted to OSD in September 1979. The fiscal year 1981 budget for $3,232.5 million presented to Congress in January 1980 incorporated decisions made during a review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense. A budget amendment was submitted in March 1980, which added $1,983.0 million to the budget request for a total of $3,234.5 million. The fiscal year 1981 Defense Appropriation Act had not been passed as of 30 September 1980.
Zero base budgeting was the primary method for the formulation of the Army research and development budget which was submitted to OSD/OMB. In addition to the three basic levels of minimum, basic, and enhanced, OSD expanded the budget from five to eight bands, resulting in a more detailed display of RDTE programs. Consoldiated decision package sets (CDPS) were also required. The CDPS provided narrative justifications for funding requested above the minimum level.
The Army continued to use TRACE techniques in estimating cost uncertainties for all major materiel developments. Thirteen systems were identified as having TRACE deferrals totaling $58.6 million in fiscal year 1980, ten in fiscal year 1981, totaling $69.1 million.
Congress appropriated a total of $9.56 million for construction of RDTE facilities in fiscal year 1980. This figure includes funds for the following Army facilities: operational test facility, Ft. Huachuca, Arizona ($330,000); ignition, rheological, and combustion sale, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. ($1,200,000); addition to radiological facility, Picatinny Arsenal ($1,850,000); addition to high pressure technology lab, Watervliet Arsenal, New York ($440,000); fixed telescope sites, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico ($1,650,000); temperature and altitude test facility, White Sands
Missile Range ($2,000,000); modernize research support facility, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. ($440,000); dynamic environmental test facility, Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona ($1,650,000). In addition, Congress appropriated $2,800,000 for land acquisition at Harry Diamond Laboratory.
The fiscal year 1980 obligation plan for Army procurement appropriations was $7.745 billion. This amount included $6.378 billion for direct Army procurement and $1.367 billion for reimbursable customer sales. The plan included all obligations incurred during fiscal year 1980 from funds appropriated in fiscal year 1978, 1979, and 1980.
Obligations incurred during fiscal year 1980 actually exceeded the plan by $582.4 million (short by $92.8 million for direct and over by $675.2 million for reimbursable). Total obligations of $8.327 billion included $6.285 billion direct and $2.042 billion reimbursable. Successful achievement of the fiscal year 1980 obligation plan resulted from obligating $1.487 billion in September.
Lapsed funds for the expiring fiscal year 1978 program were $101.7 million. The lapse of direct funds, $55.9 million, included $15.3 million for contingent liabilities. The lapse of $45.9 million in reimbursable funds resulted from generated augmentation and modernization due to the supply of government furnished materials, and other reimbursable orders where items sold from stock did not require replacement.
The fiscal year 1981 President’s budget submitted to Congress in January 1980 requested $8,698.8 million for Army procurement programs. On 14 April 1980, an amended President’s budget was submitted which decreased fiscal year 1981 procurement by $102.8 million. The decrease reflected certain Army reprogramming adjustments and an increase for inflation.
Action by the two authorization committees resulted in a net increase of $388 million in the authorization appropriations. Aircraft procurement, Army was increased by $143 million. Missiles procurement, Army was increased $66 million and weapons and tracked combat vehicles, Army received a $129 million increase.
Science and Technology
The Advanced Concepts Team was redesignated the Advanced Concepts and Technology (ACT) Committee on 15 September 1980. ACT now includes members from ODCSRDA, ODCSOPS, DARCOM, and TRADOC. Significant development efforts started in fiscal year 1980 included initial engineering work towards an antitactical ballistic missile, a novel millimeter wave lens antenna, a cast-to-
exact shape ceramic radial flow gas turbine, the exploitation of heliborne CO2 lasers as coherent radars, a demonstration of a no tail rotor concept for single blade helicopters, and a high technology fire direction center.
A technology base program development meeting was held by the Research Developments and Acquisition Committee (RDAC) for program objective memorandum 82-86 in February 1980. The purpose of this review was to resolve issues and to establish priorities for programs in 6.1 Research and 6.2 Exploratory Development program funding categories. Technology base funding profiles and single project funding/single program element funding (SPF/SPEF) reports provided the basis for these reviews. Funds were allocated in acordance with user needs as listed in the Science and Technology Objectives Guide and Emphasis was given to the solution of major Army problems.
The Army worked to coordinate and provide emphasis for several technologies with a potential for solving significant problems in fulfilling user requirements. These special “Areas of Emphasis” required multilaboratory involvement in research and development spanning the technology base (6.1 to 6.3A). The areas identified were gun propulsion technology, millimeter wave radiation, mobility and installation energy, microelectronics, fire control, command control communications intelligence system engineering, and chemical warfare and chemical/biological warfare defense. Steering groups were organized to coordinate ongoing work and prepare future plans for research and development in these areas; programs were developed to more effectively divide the labor among the responsible laboratories in order to address important needs and opportunities in these areas. The coordination of these programs has improved use of funds and minimized overlap.
The fiscal year 1980 in-house laboratory independent research (ILIR) review was conducted by members of the Army Science Board (ASB) in mid-October 1979. The annual review covered the future evaluation process, the present process, and discussed the basic thrust of the program. Future reviews will continue to be accomplished by members of the ASB with members of the Department of Army staff providing administrative support and additional information on specific programs as required. The evaluation panel was composed of ASB members in scientific disciplines corresponding to the major research areas of the laboratories taking part in the program.
Thirty-nine laboratories participated in the ILIR program. Based on last year’s feedback and guidance to the laboratory directors, twenty-one of the thirty-nine laboratories achieved measurable improvement in their programs. Seven of these laboratories achieved
significant improvement. In almost all cases there was a strong correlation between the performance in the ILIR program and laboratory performance in general. The ASB evaluation noted four significant accomplishments in the ILIR program which would significantly contribute to the research and development mission of the Army laboratories. These accomplishments were in the areas of electrical characterization of pressure synthesized galium arsenide crystals, subaural acoustic signal transmission and processing, filter for missile seeker image processing, and pulse holographic analysis of large structure vibration. In addition, there were five other highly promising projects which, if completed, will also have a major impact on research and development capabilities.
The fiscal year 1980 review continued a major effort to revitalize the ILIR program to provide for bright, new, innovative, high risk projects to increase and retain scientific expertise at Army laboratories while providing substantial scientific benefits to the Army research program.
The first edition of the “Compendium of Field Activities Key Scientific Capabilities” was published in late January 1980. This new publication provides the Army laboratory system, and others, with a document which furnishes information on each laboratory’s mission, function, and organization.
The ASB advises the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff on research and development directions and programs, system acquisition policies and procedures, and other matters pertaining to science and engineering. The basic missions and policies of the ASB are to provide technical review and management support to major Army programs in critical need of DA attention; to furnish quick reaction technical review and assessment of major program initiatives; to keep the Army alert to new science and technology developments in industry; and to consult on science and technology, Army laboratory performance, and scientific papers.
Ad hoc subgroups and review groups met to review several major programs. One ASB subgroup explored the potential of degrading opposing force capabilities by targeting (e.g., jamming, suppressing, firing on) enemy C3 (command, control, communications). Blast overpressure (physiological) effects of certain weapons systems were reported on by another ad hoc subgroup, which found need for additional basic research on medical criteria, data measurements, actual effects, and test design. Antitactical ballistic missile options were explored, with recommendations that the conventional/chemical threat be validated and that systems studies be initiated. Human issues subgroups met to evaluate management organization charters, to postulate research criteria, and to survey maps and models for im-
provement. Electronic time fuze production decisions were reviewed in light of criticism that phasedown of mechanical time fuze manufacturers might be premature. Vertical lift technology was assessed under ASB auspices by a DOD team, with input from industry providing significant direction for future research and development. The military computer family program was reviewed, with recommendations for standardized hardware, language, and instruction set architecture. A two-day review of high frequency DF (direction finding) programs identified a need for increased development and acquisition. Irradiated food continued as a special project for review; statistical analyses and comment on experiments facilitated the smooth transfer of this program from the Army to the Department of Agriculture. Night vision common module production was reviewed to assess the degree of technical or management problems inherent in transition from engineering prototypes to full scale production. National Training Center instrumentation plans concerning Phase II programs have been examined. Energy needs of the Army focused on options to reduce both facilities consumption (83 percent of Army energy) and the use of fuels for mobility.
Two summer studies were conducted in July 1980. The high technology light division concept, the major summer study effort, was studied by a multidisciplinary group organized into five functional panels to seek near term infusion of equipment to enhance offensive and defensive capabilities of infantry forces. Combat power (armor, antiarmor, artillery, special topics) and associated support (mobility, survivability, counter-C3) were examined in detail. In the other study, statistical techniques in testing were assessed, with recommendations for earlier test design/PM (program manager) coordination, education, and effective conduct of tests.
External activities included judging of best improved Army laboratories and in-house laboratory independent research projects (on behalf of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Army (RDA)) and Army science conference research papers (chair provided by ODCSRDA), which provided an independent, external, and objective review. Laboratory visits (e.g., Army Research Office, Aeromedical Lab) were conducted as an adjunct to these reviews. A visit to Alaska and Korea provided tunnel detection and air defense advice to the Cold Regions Test Center and to the Commander, United States Forces, Korea as well as a review of readiness and soldier quality of life. As a followup, testing of a modified TPQ-37 was conducted jointly by ASB, OASA, DARCOM, EUSA, and Hughes. The Tropic Test Center was visited for a dual orientation and advisory exchange. Chemical warfare work of the Defense Science Board and Air Force Scientific Advisory Board were
monitored through the attendance and participation of ASB members to assist in isolating appropriate ASB study in this area in the future. A visit to European laboratories and development agencies provided insights into potential U.S. research and development. Significant technological advances (e.g., French/German armor) were noted.
The Army Science and Technology Objectives Guide (STOG) was expected to be distributed to appropriate agencies in October 1980. However, the STOG, first published in May 1976, has proved so successful that, as recommended by the Army staff, an interim issue with requests for user comments will be distributed shortly after the end of the fiscal year.
The objectives of the realistic battlefield environments research program are to measure real battlefield environments conditions and associated obscuration effects on electro-optical and millimeter/microwave systems and to determine atmospheric interactions with high energy laser systems. Results of this effort support DARCOM and TRADOC programs involving materiel development, testing, war gaming, training, and weapon employment. Major thrusts during fiscal year 1980 were directed dust, smoke, and weather effects on electro-optical and near millimeter wave systems. Some specific accomplishments of the U.S. Army Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory during the year are described in the following paragraphs.
The interim version of the electro-optical systems atmospheric effects library (EOSAEL) was distributed and coding was completed. Measurements of aerosol characteristics, as a function of height, were conducted at Greding, Federal Republic of Germany, for the Stinger-Post missile system and models were constructed to permit better definition of airborne electro-optical weapon system performance in European fog and haze. The Dusty Infrared Test III (DIRT-III) was conducted at Fort Polk, Louisiana, in the spring of 1980, and atmospheric characterization (the study and interpretation of atmospheric behavior patterns from the surface to thirty-two meters above ground) was completed for the DOD High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF). An air-mobile transportable atmospheric characterization station (TACS) was assembled and used to define atmospheric effects on electro-optical/millimeter wave sensors.
The disturbed infrared transmission (DIRTRAN) code, a computer module in EOSAEL 80, was expanded from the version in interim EOSAEL. A model (SCREEN) was designed and constructed to provide atmospheric threshold information for fourteen different sensors. Assessments of effects of snow, haze, fog, and rain on such threshold determinations were completed and reported. Prototype
spectrophone field systems were completed, tested, and used for field support during Smoke Week III. Prototype systems for the measurement of liquid water content were developed and tested. Customized electro-optical climate models, tailored summaries, and user weather scenarios for Europe were delivered to weapons designers, war gainers, and modelers. A qualitative description of battlefield obscuration factors for central Europe was prepared and provided to the DARCOM’s battlefield systems integration office. Water vapor absorption in the submillimeter spectral region was measured as a function of pressure to allow a better understanding of the water vapor absorption line shape and hence be able to more accurately predict degrading atmospheric effects on battlefield surveillance and target acquisition systems. A prototype ceiling and visibility sensor, for use in electro-optical atmospheric characterization, was evaluated in field tests. Geometric analysis methodology was completed for the multispectral assessment of smoke and dust clouds. An interim complex terrain model for the transport and diffusion of battlefield obscurants was completed and the model used to generate realistic battlefield smoke scenarios. Additionally, a model was completed to provide the instantaneous probability of target acquisition through obscurants. Water vapor absorption in the submillimeter spectral region was measured as a function of pressure. Experimental design, fabrication, and construction was initiated in two new measurement efforts; contrast transmission measurement for electro-optical modeling and hot plume radiative transfer for modeling aircraft signature propagation. A smoke munition expenditures model, called KWIK, was used to calculate munition expenditures and impact separation in real time at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, and for real time support to PM Smoke during Smoke Week III. A two-color radar to obtain backscatter information on smoke and dust clouds for application to electro-optical systems was developed and is operational.
In fiscal year 1980 the SNOW-ONE (scenario naturalization for operation in winter-obscuration and the natural environment) exercise technical plan was developed and completed. SNOW-ONE is the first in a series of field experiments designed to explore the influence of winter terrain conditions on the propagation of directed electromagnetic energy for military purposes.
The Mobility Systems Division of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) continued efforts to improve the Army’s mobility. The Army mobility model (AMM) is designed to properly assess mobility, both from a terrain standpoint and from a vehicle standpoint.
During the last fiscal year, the mobility modeling and associated capabilities have been used to support the armored combat vehicle
technology (ACVT) program, with priority support diverted to the urgent air-transportable, protected, antiarmor/assault capable system (APAS) study to investigate the need for a light antiarmor offensive system to augment the firepower of light divisions designed for the 1986 time frame. Mobility modeling has also had a major impact on the MX Missile Program. The WES conducted research for the Ballistic Missile Office on the mobility performance of the transporter system to aid in the concept design program. Several concepts and tire sizes were modeled and performance predictions were made using current mobility modeling techniques. The Waterways Experiment Station also participated in a testing program conducted at the Nevada Test Site using a large four-wheeled hauler capable of gross loads of up to 500,000 pounds. In addition, a modeling technique has been developed to use a hand-held calculator for making mobility predictions in varied terrain and climatic conditions.
Because of the improved performance of modern combat aircraft, forward tactical air bases throughout the world are now within easy reach of, and are therefore vulnerable to, attack by enemy aircraft. This has created a renewed interest in the alternative of directly attacking the airfield pavement system and in the repair and restoration of paved surfaces.
A five-phase plan was under way and the following work had been accomplished during the year: data collection for the strike threat analysis and numbers and density of bomb impacts were completed and a report was published; a draft data report was prepared describing the results of the reset cement concrete test section under traffic; a report and film describing field operations using reset cement concrete were completed; the operational requirements, together with work in evaluation of potential rapid repair/restoration materials procedures, was accomplished; and a test section using PCC (Portland Cement Concrete), soil stabilization, grouts, and crushed stone has been tried with F-4 and C-141 full-scale loadings. In addition, rock-filled wire gabions and sand reinforced with a landing mat grid system have been traffic tested to evaluate increases in foundation support; a field reference document, “Airfield Damage Repair,” May 1979, was published; a letter report was prepared on the Airborne Corps Mission Study, the purpose of which was to develop methods for airborne engineers to rapidly open a runway for C-130 aircraft; and coordination work with U.S. Air Force and constant field exercises with the 18th Engineer Brigade using WES solutions were carried out.
Initial work involving grid and membrane reinforcement concepts dealt with constructing military bridge approach roads over soft ground. The success of the work led to applying these concepts
toward the Army’s logistic over-the-shore program. In a future war the Army must have the capability of moving supply containers weighing up to 50,000 pounds between shipside and a temporary storage yard within a few miles. Planned truck-semitrailer container operations over loose beach sands will not be possible without some type of treatment for the sand.
Several sand-grid confinement and membrane reinforcement concepts for enhancing truck trafficability over loose beach sands were tested during the last year. The sand-grid confinement work investigated optimum grid cell dimensions and surfacing requirements for over-the-shore container hauling operations. Also, several expedient membrane-reinforcement concepts were tested for mobility enhancement over sands. Technical Report GL-79-80, “Investigation of Beach Sand Trafficability Enhancement Using Sand-Grid Confinement and Membrane Reinforcement Concepts, Report 1” was published and a draft of Report 2 was completed.
A sand-grid confinement concept was developed for building supply roads over loose sands. Test results showed that the trafficability of a loaded test truck increased from 10 passes over sand with no treatment to over 10,000 passes with grids. Also, an expedient buried membrane reinforcement concept was developed that increased the truck trafficability from 10 passes to 3,500 passes.
Military engineering applications for commercial explosives (MEACE) began in 1972 at the Explosive Excavation Research Laboratory, Livermore, California. Responsibility for the project was transferred to WES in fiscal year 1976. The MEACE project was closed at the end of fiscal year 1980.
The MEACE research effort resulted in the establishment of a role for commercial slurry explosives in a theater of operations. It assisted in the identification and standardization of a particular product—a pumpable slurry—suitable for antiarmor ditching on a large scale. The program then went on to recommend doctrine for the use of this slurry.
Additionally, several lesser efforts were pursued under MEACE: explosive excavation of hull defilade positions, deliberate road-crater design, and foxhole excavation by explosives.
The Corps of Engineers is assigned responsibility for providing hydrology information to the armed forces. There are many examples of damages by floods, forces immobilized by impassable roads or high water, and operations hindered by lack of water. It is imperative that the serious consequences of neglecting hydrologic considerations are avoided by adequate preparedness and use of the latest techniques for estimating the impact of hydrology on military operations. Ongoing research directed by WES is focused on pro-
viding the necessary tools to upgrade Army hydrologic capabilities in the areas of streamflow forecasting, dam breach flood analysis, location and evaluation of water supplies in arid regions, state-of-the-ground forecasting, and acquisition of tactical weather data.
A general procedure for tactical steamflow forecasts, known as “MILHY,” is being developed. The manual version of the procedure has been completed and the microprocessor version is under development. “MILHY” is designed for use by Army Terrain Team personnel. Procedures for estimating the downstream flooding from single or multiple dam breaches are being investigated. A computerized procedure was used to support a study on earth dams which highlighted the difficulty in breaching earth dams and the inadequacy of existing conventional munitions effectiveness guides. A concept was developed for portraying groundwater supply potential information in arid regions. Prototype map overlays were developed for thirty-five Mid-East Joint Operations Graphic map sheets. Inability to obtain tactical weather data for flood and trafficability forecasts has led to experiments to evaluate the potential of weather radars and satellites for providing this data. Current efforts emphasize joint efforts with the Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory and Air Weather Service.
Groundwater supply potential overlays for thirty-five joint operations graphics were produced for selected Mid-East areas. The overlays have been provided to the Rapid Deployment joint Task Force and associated force units.
Computational methods used to predict the response of structure targets, such as bridges and shallow-buried structures subjected to airblast from nuclear weapons, have been based in large part on well-established design procedures. These computations tend to produce conservative designs, however, the predicted response may be unconservative in a targeting problem. The lack of response data from tests on these types of structures in an airblast environment has prompted extensive test programs jointly sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) and Office, Chief of Engineers. Three model bridge spans were tested in MISERs BLUFF, and a series of seven Foam REST tests have been completed in the shallow-buried structures research program during the past three years.
Data collected in these research programs have been used extensively by the Pershing II Systems Analysis Working Group to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed new weapons systems. Also, these data are being used by the WES and the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Europe, in the design of new command centers and in the updating of design manuals such as TM 855-5-1.
Using data collected in the SBS program, a procedure for com-
puting the vulnerability of shallow-buried, flat-roofed structures was developed at WES and submitted to DNA in July 1980. Following the approval of the procedure by DNA, a computer program automating the computation was put into operation at the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 1980. Vulnerability computations based on this new procedure indicate that shallow-buried, flat-roofed structures are much harder than had been predicted previously.
During fiscal year 1980, research on fixed fighting positions was conducted by the Structural Mechanics Division to provide input to the Army’s manuals for military operations in urbanized terrain (MOUT). Programs in support of MOUT define damage-distance relationships for fuel-air explosives (FAE) used against urban targets and to develop methods to protect fighting and C3 positions in urban structures. In other programs concepts were developed to increase the survivability of the Army’s field ADP system to develop rapidly emplaced fighting positions, and to better protect artillery positions.
A reinforced concrete reaction structure having replaceable wall panels was constructed at Fort Polk, Louisiana, for test of masonry walls using both FAE and conventional munitions. In the first series of tests concrete block walls were subjected to the blast effects of FAE rounds and the blast and fragmentation from shaped charge, mortar, and artillery rounds. A vulnerability analysis of the Army’s field ADP system was completed. In the vulnerability analysis various protection concepts were evaluated and several selected for final design. Through coordination meetings with the Engineer, Artillery, and Infantry Schools, requirements were established for rapidly emplaced fighting positions for the infantry and for protection of both towed and mechanized artillery. A lightweight fabric revetment was developed that successfully withstood simulated artillery blast effects. Fragmentation tests are scheduled for early fiscal year 1981. Other applications for the revetment are protection of aircraft, air defense positions, and the field ADP system.
A report describing the vulnerability analysis code used to evaluate the protective concepts for the Army’s field ADP system was published. Data from the blast test on the fabric revetment was given to the Artillery, Infantry, and Engineer Schools. Data from the FAE test on masonry wall panels was presented to the FAE working party of the Joint Technical Coordinating Group.
In the topographic sciences area, a field capability for the application of digital elevation data was demonstrated. Field exploitation of elevation data (FEED) utilizes a minicomputer programmed to provide various forms of elevation/terrain information needed to support battlefield operations. Products such as line of sight profiles between points, perspective views of terrain areas and helicopter fields
of five terrain masking plots can be generated rapidly using stored digital elevation data provided by Defense Mapping Agency’s digital terrain elevation data base.
ILIR, an infra-red, thermal-imaging system for heat flow through building materials has been developed and tested which combines the best features of thermography and of spot measurements of effective thermal conductivity. Field tests made with an infra-red, thermal-imaging system produced a two-dimensional thermogram of a masonry wall having a high heat capacity. Combined with this, heat flow sensors were placed at the warmest and coolest locations on the wall. The R-value at other areas on the wall was then deduced based on the surface temperature and the two reference values. A finite-difference technique was utilized to analyze the transient thermal response of the wall.
The reduction in effectiveness of scatterable-fragment antipersonnel mines, known as FACAM, when they are buried in snow is a factor that is unknown at present. In order to study possibly reduced effects under controlled laboratory conditions a simulator has been designed and fabricated which shoots fragment-like projectiles into a snow mass. Early indications are that natural low-density snow will have a reducing effect on scatterable mine fragments.
Ballistic Missile Defense
The Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program maintains the superiority of U.S. ballistic missile defense technology and is the only strategic effort designed to keep the United States ready to develop and deploy an active defense against missile attack, if necessary. The program is structured to be consistent with all current arms control agreements, and the BMD Program Office periodically participates in reviews of the ABM (antiballistic missile) treaty to maintain adherence.
In fiscal year 1980 the BMD organization was authorized sixty-five military and 426 civilian spaces; funding totaled $339,590,000 and included $119,854,000 for the Advanced Technology Program, $120,814,000 for the Systems Technology Program and $98,841,000 for the Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) in the Pacific.
The Advanced Technology Program is directed toward the research and development of BMD components and subsystems, including radar and optical sensors, unique discrimination techniques, hardware and software for data processing, and interceptor missiles. Some of the more advanced technological activities were the
designating optical tracker (DOT) program; the endoatmospheric nonnuclear kill program; the forward acquisition system integrated ground test program; a millimeter wave radar; Cobra Judy, a shipborne radar signature collection system; the optical aircraft measurement program; and exploration of directed energy weapons, such as the particle beam program.
Three DOT program flights were accomplished successfully: one in December 1978 and the others in February and September 1980. DOT is providing data that verifies the capability of long wave-length infrared sensors to perform the BMD generic functions of designation and track under realistic engagement geometry and environmental conditions. Planning, coordination, and component testing have been initiated for other flights which will evaluate different target conditions. In 1980 a study was completed which examined application of current DOT equipment to other programs.
The objective of the endoatmospheric nonnuclear kill program is to establish a technology base for future demonstration of a homing guided intercept and nonnuclear kill of representative reentry vehicles in the atmosphere. A three-degree-of-freedom end game computer simulation was completed and used to examine trade-offs and determine sensitivities. Upgrade of this simulation to six-degrees-of-freedom was initiated, and incorporation of hardware-in-the-loop and environmental effects explored. Technology developments in final design and test phases were incorporated into updated integrated ground and flight test planning.
The forward acquisition system program, established in October 1978, was redirected in fiscal year 1980. Plans for design and implementation of an integrated ground test program were initiated. In support of this effort the early warning augmentation team completed identification of functional performance, sensitivity analyses, and requirements definition for an integrated ground test program.
Component development and fabrication of a millimeter wave radar for use in collecting data on BMD targets at KMR is in progress. Major components have been procured and are being assembled for testing. These components will be shipped to Roi-Namur Island at KMR for installation. Installation of the antenna tower and radome support at Kwajalein was in progress when the year ended.
Fabrication was completed on all major radar subsystems for the jointly funded Cobra Judy, which is designed to provide intelligence data for the U.S. Air Force Systems Command Foreign Technology Division and for the BMD Advanced Technology Center (BMDATC). These subsystems are being integrated for testing. The U.S.S. Observation Island was towed to the Maryland Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Company, refurbished, and made seaworthy. It meets all the requirements for the Cobra Judy platform. Modification of the ship is in progress including installation of the radar array turret.
Objectives of the optical aircraft measurements program are development and implementation of an airborne measurement system capable of providing exoatmospheric and early reentry infrared data on BMD targets. This data will be used as a base for development and evaluation of discrimination techniques. In fiscal year 1980, the BMDATC published an “Optical Aircraft Measurements Program Management Plan” documenting program objectives, the preliminary concept, and the proposed plan of implementation. A determination of the requirements for the aircraft platform and the infrared sensor was under way at the end of the year. Infrared radiation from the upper atmosphere (above the ceiling of the aircraft platform) was also being measured and modeled to determine its effect on the sensor. Results of these measurements will aid in deconvolution of the atmospheric noise from the target signature measurements. Approximately 80 percent of the planned sky noise measurements are completed. A site survey assessing available aircraft basing facilities and determining additional requirements has been completed and a request made for military construction authority to provide for the additional basing requirements.
Overall responsibility for the particle beam program was assigned to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at the end of fiscal year 1980. For DARPA, the BMDATC will primarily perform technical management and serve as procurement agent for two major efforts: the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory exoatmospheric neutral particle beam accelerator program and the Austin Research Associates collective ion accelerator proof-of-principle experiment known as the auto-resonant accelerator. The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory had made significant advances in ion source development and was nearing completion of facilities to house the accelerator test stand which will be used to test the major components of the neutral particle beam accelerator when the year ended. Austin Research Associates had made substantial progress in its high gradient accelerator experiment by characterizing the electron beam, and exciting, detecting, and identifying the specific cyclotron wave which is required for ion trapping and acceleration.
Emphasis in the Systems Technology Program during fiscal year 1980 concerned “near term” technology or that which could be expected to contribute to a BMD system deployed in the next few years.
The Systems Technology Project Office (STPO) continued definition of a layered defense system (LDS). A baseline LDS design, defined in the preliminary design review held in March 1979, would
have operated under the concept of engaging the approaching threat with two tiers, or layers, of defensive missiles. An outer layer of interceptors formed the overlay system, each interceptor carrying a number of small kill vehicles capable of destroying a reentry vehicle through nonnuclear means. The inner or under layer was the improved Site Defense system which would have engaged those targets that had eluded the overlay and killed them with nuclear warhead detonations. In 1980, analysis was directed toward potential use of the low altitude defense (LoAD) system as the underlay system. The LoAD system is characterized by numerous, low cost radars and distributed data processors in contrast to the improved site defense system which has a fairly small number of radars that offer potentially high value targets to the offense. Results of the 1980 analysis, documented in the Layered Defense System (LoAD Underlay) Concept Definition published in October 1980, showed that an effective LDS could be constructed with a LoAD underlay.
The homing overlay experiment (HOE) continued with a two-phase demonstration planned to prove technology associated with the overlay portion of the LDS. In October and November an experiment preliminary design review was conducted at Lockheed Missiles and Space Company (LMSC), the HOE interceptor supplier and integration contractor, and at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company (MDAC), the mission and launch control subsystem contractor. LMSC progressed in releasing firmware/software requirements to the flight computer contractor, Honeywell Avionics Division, and provided a translator to convert FORTRAN to MICROCODE to eliminate most of the manual work usually associated with such an effort. Fabrication and testing of HOE sensor hardware progressed. Representatives of the HOE Division of STPO, other government agencies, and private industry formed a committee to define standards for infrared source calibration approaches. This is a first for this particular field of technology since no universally accepted set of test terms is available to describe measurement errors. A C-3 access stand, approved in fiscal year 1979 for use in checking out the HOE interceptor at KMR, has been modified, checked out, and prepared for shipment to the range. In 1980 the U.S. Air Force agreed to fund the instrumented test vehicle testing and the BMD Systems Command (BMDSCOM) modified MDAC’s contract to cover this performance.
The systems technology underlay experiment is the culmination of a program which was first started as the Site Defense prototype demonstration and later modified to a technology program exploring key issues associated with a terminal BMD system to defend Minuteman silos or other hard targets. Effort in fiscal year 1980 concerned gathering of data on a number of live target tracking missions
and evaluating that data, through simulations and analyses. Seven live tracking missions (five targets of opportunity and two dedicated targets) were performed during the year to test various aspects of the system or to gather data for future use. BMD components performed as expected on each mission. Payload deployment problems prevented all mission objectives from being met on only one of the dedicated missions. To recoup discrimination data lost on the systems technology reentry experiment program (STREP)-2 mission where, due to a Minuteman-I booster anomaly, the desired clutter environment for the reentry vehicle and traffic decoys was not achieved, a target of opportunity was designated as a clutter experiment. This clutter experiment used the expanded multiple target generator for injecting simulated radar returns for a reentry vehicle and decoy into actual radar returns from live mission tank breakup and provided “quasi” live mission data on discrimination performance in such clutter. An army optical station (AOS)/systems technology radar (STR) handover experiment was attempted on two targets-of-opportunity missions. On the first, cloud cover prevented the optical station from acquiring the target and no handover was completed. However, the STR did acquire the target by its normal search mode and maintained track until face exit. The second mission was successful and demonstrated the handover of an optical system track to a ground based radar system using techniques representative of those to be used in an LDS. The capability to transmit new waveforms was incorporated into the STR and considerable data was gathered using these waveforms on still another target-of-opportunity mission and on the final dedicated mission (STREP-3). STREP-4 and STREP-3, conducted during the year, completed the planned testing for the underlay experiment program and a decision was made to deactivate the systems technology test facility (STTF) on Meck Island in the Pacific. An STTF Deactivation Plan, was published on 30 September I980.
The LoAD System, conceived as a near-term, technology-point defense system, is expected to be valuable in defending either the MX missile system or silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The current LoAD plan provides for a preprototype demonstration (PPD) to be completed upon successful firings at White Sands Missile Range and at KMR during the mid-to-late 1980s. The LoAD PPD program summary, signed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering on 19 May I980, directed BMDSCOM to proceed with Phase I activity. Specifications were developed for the generic LoAD interceptor to support the MX and Minuteman requirements and a preliminary concept established for mounting these interceptors and the associated launch equip-
ment. The brassboard model of the LoAD interceptor digital missile controller set was completed and plans formulated for the wind tunnel testing of the missile. A request for quotation (RFQ) for the Phase IA of the PPD was issued to Martin Marietta Corporation. The signature measurement radar was built and component testing begun. A discrimination and reentry physics panel was formed in May to provide the LoAD program guidance in the area of discrimination and reentry physics. Models were formulated and evaluated which will be used in the sensor engagement controller RFQ. In July the LoAD Project Office issued a sensor and engagement controller Request for Information. Comments received from industry were incorporated and an RFQ issued in early September.
Key threat documents published by the STPO Threat Office in support of BMD system studies and concept evaluations included: LoAD MX Threat Parameters, April 1980; Layered Defense/LoAD Threat Parameters, April 1980; Reentry Vehicle Threat Vulnerability/Lethality Models for LDS/LoAD System Design, August 1980; Threat Stockpile Projections for BMD Studies, March 1980; and 1987-99 Threat Projections for BMD Studies, June 1980. The Threat Office prepared and submitted annual and supplemental intelligence production requirements for BMD to the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence for action. The Threat Office conducted final reviews of the fiscal year 1979 comparative BMD capabilities (red/blue) study effort and completed plans for the fiscal year 1980 effort. The 1979 study provided red BMD information for use by the BMD program manager in congressional and related briefings. A contract modification issued in 1980 extended through September 1981 Teledyne Brown Engineering’s ICBM/Sea Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) Attack Geometry Simulations effort. This effort, costing approximately $470,000, is funded by Electronics Systems Division, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, and supports the Warning Information Correlation (WIC) Study. A member of the STPO Threat Office serves on the WIC Threat Panel. The U.S. Army Air Defense Command, Colorado Springs, Colorado, provided BMDSCOM $300,000 to initiate an early warning assessment contract with Teledyne Brown Engineering to perform an assessment of software involved in the recent false alarm problems of early warning. The ICBM/SLBM attack geometry simulations contract mentioned above was modified to provide technical direction of this effort.
Weapons effects activities completed this year included the joint Department of Energy/Department of Defense Phase I warhead study for the LoAD initiated in fiscal year 1979. The low altitude effects working group reviewed the most stressing nuclear environments that the LoAD system will experience. Methods and techniques of
calculating these environments were validated and additional environments examined. An attack working group completed the offense attack laydown definition effort on LoAD-defended MX multiple protective structures. LoAD weapons effects environments also were defined and provided to prospective bidders for the interceptor and sensor engagement controller. BMD and the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) began interchange meetings to define mutual weapons effects tasks to be sponsored by DNA. The STPO Weapons Office published a weapon effects problems and guidelines document providing technical information on preferred life cycle hardening design and indicating techniques to be avoided.
The KMR continued support to programs of numerous agencies including the U.S. Air Force’s increasingly complex developmental and operational tests of ICBMs, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Aircraft-launched missiles and bomb drops were “firsts” for the Range. Support was provided to the Navy’s reentry vehicle development program through small rocket launches from Roi-Namur Island. Additionally, extensive base and technical support was provided to the STTF on Meck Island during the six target-of-opportunity and two dedicated missions described above. It also supported the BMDATC designating optical tracker missions and the Army Optical Station on Roi-Namur. Modification of a long range tracking and instrumentation radar (ALTAIR) continued through fiscal year 1980. This modification will enable the high power ultra high frequency/very high frequency radar to perform new missions.
The Deputy Director, Defense Test and Evaluation (DDTE) requested the KMR Directorate to participate in a 12-month, tri-service strategic systems test support study to evaluate the Department of Defense user test support requirements. The study will develop an overall approach that would assure nonredundant, cost-effective support for offensive and defensive systems in both the Atlantic and Pacific, including mid-range and terminal range configuration. An alternative Pacific instrumented test area was to be identified in the event that the Kwajalein Atoll was no longer available. The scope included land-based and mobile resources with their projected work loads and requirements for upgrades, modifications, and augmentation. The DDTE and the Major Range and Test Facility Committee were briefed on 22 September on the proposed approach.
Extended Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) testing of three pilot-model XMIs at Fort Knox, Kentucky, was completed on
19 December 1979 and demonstrated that prior reliability and power train durability shortfalls had been overcome.
The first two Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) XMIs were delivered to the Army on schedule on 28 February 1980 at the Lima Army Tank Plant, Lima, Ohio. Senator John Glenn from Ohio, announced the XM1 name, the General Abrams tank. Mrs. Abrams, the widow of the former Army Chief of Staff, christened the first production-model XM1 the “Thunderbolt” after the name of her husband’s tank during World War II.
Following the acceptance ceremony, the first production-model XM1 was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, for use in DT (development test) III which started in March 1980. In fiscal year 1980, development testing was conducted at Aberdeen and Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. In addition, the prime contractor, Chrysler Defense, Inc., ran shakedown tests of production tanks at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and in the Cold Chamber at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Operational Test (OT) III began in mid-September 1980 and will continue in fiscal year 1981 at two sites, Fort Knox, Kentucky, and Fort Hood, Texas.
As of 30 September 1980, Chrysler continued to experience production startup problems, and only twenty-six of the originally planned sixty-three XM1s had been produced and accepted by the Army.
Since 1973, the Army has been engaged in a cooperative effort with the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to seek a common main armament system for the Leopard II and XM1 tanks. On 31 January 1978, the Army formally announced the selection of the FRG 120-mm. smoothbore gun system for continued U.S. development and future incorporation into the XM1 tank. In April 1978, a special ASARC approved a 120-mm. gun program with a first production delivery of a 120-mm. gun equipped XM1 tank in August 1984. On 22 February 1979, the U.S. and the developer, Rheinmetall, signed a license to allow the United States to produce the 120-mm. system (cannon and ammunition).
The U.S. 120-mm. tank gun program officially started on 8 March 1979. On 23 March 1979, a special ASARC approved a revised program with a first production delivery date of a 120-mm. equipped XM1 tank scheduled for August 1985. On 4 June 1979, the Secretary of Defense directed that the Army should plan for an August 1984 first production delivery date of a 120-mm. gun equipped XM1 tank. On 23 August 1979, the 120-mm. gun equipped XM1 tank was designated the XM1E1 tank. The first U.S.-manufactured XM 256 120-mm. cannon (tube and breech) was delivered by Watervliet Arsenal on schedule on 30 April 1980 to Aberdeen Proving Ground
for testing. As of 30 September 1980, work continued on the fabrication and testing of the 120-mm. ammunition family of rounds. Chrysler Corporation is beginning to convert two XM1 tanks to XM1E1 tanks that will be used in subsequent contractor testing.
Fiscal Year 1980 was a period of major change and evolution in the Division Air Defense (DIVAD) gun program. During the year, the program was restructured several times due to funding constraints. The President’s budget reduced the weapons and tracked combat vehicle (WTCV) appropriations request from $333.5 million to $204.4 million in fiscal year 1981. This resulted in a six-month slip in the production schedule and a reduction in the planned procurement quantity from forty-two to twelve. In March an amended budget was submitted which reduced the WTCV appropriation an additional $100 million resulting in deferral of the first fire unit procurement until fiscal year 1982.
A request for proposal (RFP) was issued to support this revised program in May and contractor proposals for the production of DIVAD guns were received in August. At year’s end, these proposals were under evaluation by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) with an anticipated contract award scheduled for February 1981.
Prototypes from the two contractors were delivered to the Army on 15 June 1980 for the start of government testing. Prior to delivery a thirty-day demonstration and sixty days of contractor testing were scheduled at North McGregor Range, Ft. Bliss, Texas. The government combined development test/operational test was started on schedule on 15 June 1980 and was still in progress at year’s end. Testing was scheduled to be completed in mid-November 1980.
During fiscal year 1980, the Patriot Air Defense Missile system formally entered production. DSARC III was held on August 18, 1980 and the approval to proceed into limited production was signed by the Secretary of Defense on 10 September.
A series of developmental and operational tests to verify the capabilities of system prototype hardware in a tactical environment began in January 1980. The results of these tests highlighted several deficiencies, particularly in software maturity and reliability. All of the deficiencies were considered correctable. Based on this testing, the Secretary of Defense approved limited production and the first production contract was signed in October 1980. Production approval is currently limited to five fire units in fiscal year 1981 and nine in fiscal year 1982.
The U.S. Roland Missile System is a highly mobile, air transportable, short range, all weather, air defense system. The Roland Missile System consists of a fire unit, missiles, a carrier vehicle, a
trainer, and maintenance test sets. The fire unit is fully self contained in a module that can be in a fixed position or mounted on a variety of vehicles and requires no interunit cabling. The fire unit consists of a search radar, a track radar, a computer, an identification, friend or foe unit (IFF), an optical sight, two automatic reload launchers and two storage magazines. Ten missiles are carried on the fire unit; two are on launchers ready for firing, and eight are carried in the magazines for automatic reloading.
The initial low-rate production contract was awarded to the associate prime contractors—Hughes Aircraft Company (HAC) and Boeing Aerospace Company (BAC)—on 30 October 1979. A second low-rate production contract was awarded 10 January 1980. Award of these contracts was delayed more than four months because fiscal year 1979 procurement funds could not be released until the fiscal year 1980 Roland authorization issue was resolved by the Congressional Joint Authorization Conference. The impact of this delay in fiscal years 1979 and 1980 amounts to $10.4 million, which will be handled by reducing hardware quantities and the scope of engineering services in fiscal year 1981. In all, twenty-one fire units and 485 missiles are now on contract. A Department of Defense-directed program restructure resulted in the continuation of low-rate production for a third year and quantity reductions to accommodate a two battalion (95 fire units) instead of a four battalion (180 fire units) program. The RDTE program was to be increased more than $5.0 million in fiscal year 1981 for a new effort to develop a prototype maintenance training simulator for use in training organizational and direct support maintenance personnel. These funds are provided under the labor saving capital investment program (LSCIP).
Instructor and key personnel training continued at BAC/Seattle with the first two classes completed during the period. Government acceptance of two organizational maintenance test sets (OMTS) and one field maintenance test set (FMTS) completed the delivery of all major Roland hardware items under the technology transfer fabrication and test (TTF&T) contract. The special evaluation test program, designed to evaluate required modifications to TTF&T hardware, began in early July 1980 at White Sands Missile Range. In all, five ground tests, fifteen tracking missions, and nine firings were planned for 10 July-15 November 1980. Also, three ground tests, two tracking missions and four firings were completed, and the reliability improvement program was begun during this reporting period.
General Dynamics, the prime contractor in the Stinger program made limited deliveries of weapons from the first production contract in March 1980. The first article flight tests passed with only one failure occurring. Several technical problems arose during the
reliability and training flights. Production deliveries were further delayed due to component level qualification and pilot lot test failures. These tests are being repeated. The responsibility for management and procurement of the Stinger IFF system was transferred from the U.S. Army Missile Command (MICOM) to U.S. Army Communication Electronics Readiness Command (CERCOM) during September 1980.
The Stinger passive optical seeker techniques (POST) seeker development program continued during the year. Ground testing and flight vehicle fabrication and assembly were the major activities conducted. The POST program was extended to fifty-four months because of problems associated with the integration/assembly and testing of the POST seeker head and packaged electronics.
Several significant testing activities were accomplished during this period. The third POST fly-by tracking test was completed in January 1980, as well as sled tests performed at China Lake during May-June 1980. A winter tracking test was also conducted in Germany during February and March 1980 to measure the Stinger and Stinger-POST seeker’s performance under the adverse weather conditions of that region.
The Improved Hawk (IHawk) system is the Army’s all weather, day and night, low to medium altitude air defense guided missile system. To keep pace with the projected threat, a series of product improvements is being applied in three phases to fielded equipment. Procuring and fielding the initial set of system improvements continued in fiscal year 1980. Collectively, these were known as Phase I product improvements and were: (1) increasing the number of channels of communications within an IHawk battery; (2) doubling the computer memory and upgrading the data processor capability to speed the flow of tactical information; (3) improving the detection range of the continuous wave acquisition radar (CWAR) and upgrading its reliability; and (4) upgrading the electronics of the pulse acquisition radar (PAR) to give it a better detection capability. New equipment training (NET) on the Phase I modifications for U.S. Army personnel was conducted in CONUS and in West Germany.
Development continued on Phase II. An optical tracker modification called the Tracking Adjunct System (TAS) will give each IHawk firing unit an alternate mode for tracking targets. The TAS was placed under contract in fiscal year 1980. Upgrading the IHawk missile performance in a jamming environment was carried on. Progress continued on making improvements to the Hawk’s tracking radar (improved high power illuminator). Improvements will be in reliability, availability, maintainability, and emission control.
On 15 April 1980, the U.S. Army’s Missile Command completed a
study on what additional improvements (beyond Phase I and II) are needed to ensure IHawk is properly phased into its interface role with the Patriot air defense weapon system during the 1980s. The Department of the Army published and briefed Congress on its Air Defense Program Plan 90. The plan addressed the longevity of IHawk and the IHawk force level planned during the initial stages of Patriot fielding.
The Copperhead is a 155-mm. field artillery projectile fired from conventional howitzers and designed to attack stationary and moving hard point targets such as tanks with a high probability of first round kills. The projectile acquires and homes on the laser energy reflected from a target which has been illuminated by the ground laser locator designator. Continuing development efforts for the target acquisition designation system for helicopters and remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs) with on-board laser designator capability are expected to provide a range of designator options in the future. The DSARC III decision to begin Copperhead production was approved by the Secretary of Defense on 15 December 1979. The Secretary approved production at a rate of 200 projectiles per month until a reliability of .8 is demonstrated. In addition, a reliability growth test plan to achieve a reliability of .9 was required within ninety days of construction of the production facility with a target completion date of December 1980. The contract for the first three years’ production was signed on 7 March 1980.
In the past year the Viper system was redesigned to correct several problems. These design changes have been tested at the component and system level. The noise level has been reduced and man firing will begin in November 1980. Production facilities for Viper have proceeded simultaneously with system development in order to minimize the time required to deliver the system.
The Hellfire operational test was conducted during May-July 1980. Data was obtained in an operational environment to assess the operational effectiveness to include command and control, hit performance, human factors, and safety. Information was also obtained on the reliability, availability, and maintainability of the system. In fiscal year 1980, five Hellfire missiles with live warheads were successfully fired from a tower during developmental testing. Planning continued for an engineering development program for an imaging infrared (fire-and-forget) seeker to complement the laser seeker in the Hellfire system. A cost and operational effectiveness analysis was continued and necessary program documentation was initiated to achieve approval for the program.
In February 1980 the President approved Pershing II (PII) as a program of highest national priority. During fiscal year 1980, major contractor component testing of PII was successful and on schedule.
Six static firings of the first and second stage motors were completed and the initial phase of captive flight testing of the radar area correlator was completed. Test results provided initial verification of required performance.
The program decision memorandum (PDM) for the fiscal year 1982 budget cancelled the earth penetrator warhead program for fiscal year 1982 and beyond based on budgetary and priority considerations. The Army’s reclama to the PDM was not sustained in the amended PDM.
The U.S. Army is conducting a two-step program to improve the performance of the TOW antitank guided missile against advanced enemy armor and dirty battlefield. First phase of the upgrading program is an improved five-inch warhead. The second step, called TOW 2, will include a heavier six-inch warhead with even greater armor-piercing capacity. In addition, the missile guidance system will be improved.
The TOW improvement program will enable this battle-proven antitank missile to meet anticipated enemy threats and at the same time will preserve the Army’s large investment in its primary infantry heavy assault weapon system. Changes are being planned in such a way as to minimize the obsolescence of existing elements in the TOW system. Development and testing on both phases of the improvement program are under way. Both warhead improvement programs are being directed by the Army Research Development Command’s Picatinny Arsenal. The overall TOW improvement program is managed by the Army Missile Command.
The Improved TOW Vehicle (ITV) is an M113A2 armored personnel carrier modified by addition of an erectable, two-tube launcher head mounted on a cupola with 360 degree traverse capability. It provides armor protection for the crew and TOW system components against small arms and indirect artillery fire. The ITV was deployed to USAREUR in considerable depth during fiscal year 1980 and troop acceptance has been excellent. After evaluation of its capabilities by the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the Commander in Chief, USAREUR, decided to equip all of the command’s armored cavalry units with ITV pending availability of the IFV/CFV.
A multiyear letter contract for 910 ITVs, including 190 vehicles from the fiscal year 1979 program and all of the quantities programmed for fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1981, was awarded to the Emerson Electric Company in January 1980. The contract is expected to be the final ITV buy for the U.S. Army.
The Cobra/TOW continued its modernization program in fiscal year 1980 through phased product improvements to the AH-1. One hundred sixty AH-1Gs were contracted for conversion to AH-1Ss
with 20 millimeter cannon, a fire control subsystem, and wing stored, 2.75 inch rocket management subsystem. The fire control subsystem has been the major effort of the second phase of the enhanced Cobra armament program (ECAP) to strengthen and modernize the Cobra attack helicopter.
The CH-47 modernization program preliminary airworthiness evaluation (PAE) was completed in early December 1979 and a very successful developments test II/operational test II was conducted from 14 December 1979 through 9 May 1980. A “no issue” Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) III met on 19 August 1980 and recommended that the CH-47 modernization program advance into full production in fiscal year 1981. The formal Defense Acquisition Review Council (DSARC) III was waived and the Secretary of Defense approved the program as recommended.
The Advanced Attack Helicopter continued in full scale engineering development during 1980. The focus this year was the complete integration of all subsystems and weapons on the helicopter. In April 1980, the competition between contractors to continue development of and produce the Target Acquisition Designation Sight and Pilots Night Vision Sensor (TADS/PNVS)) was completed. Martin-Marietta was selected as the winning contractor. All five flight test vehicles had the winning TADS/PNVS integrated by May 1980 when these prototype helicopters were in flight tests with the stabilator modification. Subsequent developmental flight and subsystems tests were satisfactory.
The UH-60A Black Hawk force development test and experimentation (FDTE) was successfully completed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in October 1979. By November 1979, the first combat support aviation company was fully equipped with Black Hawk helicopters and determined to be operationally ready to perform its assigned combat support mission. Black Hawk production continued into the fourth year with procurement of ninety-four helicopters in fiscal year 1980. From the first production helicopter delivery in October 1978 to the end of fiscal year 1980, the Army received eighty-one UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters.
The Aquila remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) systems technology demonstration in 1978 was a joint material developer/combat developer “hands on” experimentation and testing program to understand the role of the RPV, determine its place in the force structure, and determine how it should be integrated into the command, control, and targeting systems. The RPV was configured as a flying wing, had a twelve-foot wing span and six-foot-long fuselage, had a gross weight of 144 pounds, was powered by a twelve HP engine, flew at speeds between 45 and 100 knots and remained air-
borne at least 1.5 hours. The system was tested at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
A cost-plus-incentive-fee contract was awarded to Lockheed Missiles and Space Company on 31 August 1979 for the full-scale engineering developments of an RPV System. Contract value is $101.1 million over a period of forty-three months. Hardware delivered will consist of twenty-two air vehicles, eighteen mission payload subsystems, four ground control stations, and three launcher and recovery subsystems. First flight of the system is scheduled for August 1981. Production is scheduled to start in 1984.
Development of the Infantry Fighting Vehicle/Calvary Fighting Vehicle (IFV/CFV) continued during fiscal year 1980 with a production contract awarded to FMC Corporation in February 1980 to begin the first year procurement of 100 vehicles. The fighting vehicle systems, less test equipment and training devices, were type-classified in January 1980 after an ASARC/DSARC III review of the program.
Operational testing II was completed in November 1979 with the systems achieving essentially all major test objectives and system specifications. Development testing II continued through June 1980 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The fix verification test was conducted during September-October 1980 to evaluate vehicle modifications incorporated to correct deficiencies. The Army conducted force development test and experimentation (FDTE) for the cavalry fighting vehicle at Fort Knox, Kentucky, during April-August 1980. Contractor cost increases, inflation growth, and the Army’s conservation management concept caused strong OSD and congressional pressure to hasten the completion of plans for competition. A special ASARC was held on 18 July 1980 to review alternative second-source strategies.
On 30 January 1980 the Secretary of the Army approved termination of project management for high energy laser systems. The technology related elements of the High Energy Laser Systems Project Office and the High Energy Laser Laboratory were merged into the Directed Energy Directorate as part of the U.S. Army Missile Laboratory at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. This decision was made after nearly a year of evaluating the status of the technology base and high energy laser programs related to the acquisition cycle, the constraints of limited resource availability, and requirements for responsive management and control of this unique high technological effort.
In March 1979 DARCOM directed a complete review of laser weapons to present to the Army the most promising that technology offers, and the Army laser weapon technology assessment was undertaken. This assessment, which was published in early 1980, analyzed
pertinent DOD laser device and technology efforts. Subsequently, the Army established a program to provide for early capability demonstration upon which to base future laser weapon system decisions and the concurrent advancement of the high energy laser technology base in the areas of laser energy generation devices, large rugged optics, laser phenomenology data base, and acquisition and fire control.
Production continued on manportable common thermal night sights: AN/TAS-4 (TOW), AN/TAS-5 (Dragon), and AN/TAS-6 (night observation device, long range). New production contracts were awarded for the AN/TAS-4 and the AN/TAS-6. These night sights make use of a set of infrared common modules (IRCM) which are also used by some Navy and Air Force systems. Contracts were also awarded for production of supporting equipments AN/TAM-3 (test set, night vision sights) and AN/TAM-4 (bottle cleaning/charging station). Negotiations continued within NATO for sale and cooperative production of IRCM. A draft memorandum of understanding has been completed and will be circulated for signature.
Production continued on second generation image intensification night sights: AN/PVS-4 (individual served weapons sight), AN/TVS-5 (crew served weapons sight), and AN/PVS-5 (night vision goggles). Work continued on third generation image intensification devices: The aviators night vision imaging system (ANVIS), which will permit nap-of-the-earth flight in overcast starlight conditions, proceeded in engineering development. The low cost night vision aids for use by the individual soldier proceeded in advanced development.
One of two Standoff Target Acquisition Systems (SOTAS) in advanced development participated in Operation ANORAK EXPRESS (February-March 1980), a multinational NATO field exercise in Norway. The exercise tested the system’s ability to deploy tactically (in C-5 aircraft) and to operate in the rugged terrain and arctic climate of northern Norway. The operation was successful on both counts. In the SOTAS engineering development program, the radar design successfully passed the “Proof of Principle” demonstration. All major systems progressed through both the preliminary and the critical design review phases. The basic design for all components has been approved. The first UH-60 Blackhawk airplane was modified to a YEH-60B configuration and flown with a dummy antenna. Fullscale mockup of the airborne and ground station subsystem were completed.
The Family of Scatterable Mines (FASCAM) represents a significant advancement in the technology of mine warfare. The system achieves increased utility through the use of modern electronics, a
variety of delivery means, and a high degree of commonality of parts within the mines.
The area denial artillery munition (ADAM) is an artillery delivered antipersonnel mine activated by deployed triplines. Thirty-six mines are dispensed from a single modified M483 155-mm. howitzer shell. In production during fiscal year 1980, the system will be fielded in fiscal year 1982.
The remote antiarmor mine (RAAM) is magnetically fuzed and artillery delivered. Ten rounds can produce a 250 by 300 meter minefield. Minefield density is a function of the height of the burst, and can be controlled with the number of rounds applied. Any 155-mm. artillery piece is capable of emplacing RAAM mines by firing a modified M483 projectile. Nine RAAM mines fit inside one projectile. When the artillery is fired, the safe and arming mechanism senses the forces of spin and mine ejection for proper arming. The mines are expelled from the rear of the projectile over the target. After ground impact, the mine is armed and ready to detonate upon sensing a proper armored vehicle signature. RAAM is in production. The system will be fielded in fiscal year 1982.
The ground emplaced mine scattering system (GEMSS) is designed to provide rapid emplacement of large, prepared minefields in friendly territory. While minefields of the same size can be emplaced conventionally, GEMSS is preferred because of its significantly faster emplacement rate and lower manpower requirements. Two types of mines are launched using this system. One is an antiarmor mine that is activated by magnetic influence. The second is an antipersonnel mine activated by a tripline. The antipersonnel mines can be effectively dispersed with the antitank mines to protect the minefield from disturbance by enemy ground support troops. Both types of mines have antidisturbance features, and selectable self-destruct times. GEMSS was type classified, standard A, in April 1980. Production will begin in fiscal year 1981; the system is scheduled for fielding in fiscal year 1983.
GATOR mines are designed to be effective for interdiction of second echelon forces in assembly areas and columns. A single aircraft sortie can deliver approximately 600 GATOR mines covering a 200 by 300 meter area. Both antiarmor and antipersonnel mines are used in the GATOR mine system. These mines are ballistically matched, similar in appearance, and feature a high degree of commonality in their respective subsystems. GATOR is a joint service development program. The U.S. Air Force has overall system responsibility. Type classification is scheduled in fiscal year 1981.
The Modular Pack Mine System (MOPMS) is a portable mine system designed for selective protection and smaller area coverage.
The MOPMS modules are normally transported to the site by truck. The MOPMS module is emplaced by soldiers hand carrying it to the desired location. If no contact with enemy forces is made or if there is no need to fire the MOPMS modules, they can be retrieved, and reused. If enemy contact is made the modules can be fired instantly by remote command to deploy the mines. In a withdrawal maneuver, the modules can be activated immediately after the friendly units pass. Two types of mines can be emplaced using MOPMS. One type is the antiarmor mine activated by a magnetic influence. The other type is an antipersonnel mine activated by triplines and used to protect the antiarmor mines from disturbance by enemy foot soldiers. MOPMS was in full scale development at the end of the year.
The fiscal year 1982 Program Decision Memorandum directed the Army to terminate the 155-mm. nuclear projectile modernization program and to retain the seventeen-year-old M454 155-mm. artillery fired atomic projectile. The Chief of Staff of the Army personally argued the case with the Secretary of Defense for a new 155-mm. nuclear projectile in addition to the new 8-inch nuclear projectile then nearing the end of development. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, the Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, and the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, also intervened in support of 155-mm. nuclear projectile modernization. As a result, the Secretary of Defense’s Amended Program Decision Memorandum for the fiscal year 1982 budget cycle restored this vitally needed program.
The Army and the Department of Energy initiated component production for the XM753/W79 improved 8-inch nuclear projectile and the Department of Energy initiated component production for the W70-4 Lance warhead. Army production of adaption kits for the new Lance warhead was completed in fiscal year 1980. The initial operational capability with these two new nuclear weapons was originally scheduled in fiscal year 1978 and fiscal year 1979 but production was delayed by Congress as a result of the highly publicized “neutron bomb” controversy. The Byrd-Baker Amendment to the fiscal year 1978 Department of Energy Appropriations Act prohibited the expenditure of production funds on enhanced radiation nuclear weapons pending a Presidential decision on the need for this kind of weapon. The production initiated in fiscal year 1980 supports the Presidential decision to modernize the 8-inch nuclear projectile and the Lance warheads and to retain the option to convert them to enhanced radiation weapons.
The fiscal year 1982 Program Decision Memorandum directed the Army to terminate the development of an earth penetrating nuclear warhead for the Pershing II missile. The Under Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering requested the Department of Energy to preserve the earth penetrator technology for possible application to future weapon systems.
The Army initiated formal studies to identify the nuclear requirements for a Corps Support Weapons System as a Lance follow-on, and to identify the technological alternatives for modernizing the W45 medium atomic demolition munition and the B54 special atomic demolition munition in support of theater requirements.
Based on an extensive NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency modernization effort to extend the life of the Nike Hercules air defense missile system, the Army requested that the Department of Energy apply modifications to the nuclear warhead that would improve the nuclear safety of that warhead.
The Army made a decision on 30 November 1979 to defer development of an advanced scout helicopter system, and pursue development of a near term scout helicopter (NTSH) based upon modification of an existing inventory airframe. The primary aspect of the NTSH program is to put a mast-mounted-sight (MMS) on the aircraft to improve its mission performance capability. The MMS will enable the aircraft to perform its reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition functions while remaining hidden behind masking obstacles such as trees and terrain.
The Army conducted an evaluation of the UH-1 and OH-58 as NTSH candidates. Based upon the results of the relative detectability of the two, the UH-1 was dropped from consideration as a candidate airframe. The results of this evaluation showed that there was a dramatic reduction of the detectability of the OH-58 as a result of the MMS. A 10 July 1980 decision by the Army made the NTSH a competitive modification program. Independently from the Army, industry had developed a commercial helicopter similar to the OH-6. Actions are continuing to solicit industry for technical proposals that address the Army’s needs for a near term scout helicopter.
Testing commenced in April 1979 on four candidates for the squad automatic weapon (SAW): XM106—heavy barrel M16A1; XM248—Ford Aerospace Corp; XM249—Fabrique Nationale (FN), Beligum; and XM262—Heckler and Koch, FRG. On 28 May 1980, an inprocess review (IPR) was conducted to select the best SAW weapon from the four candidates, and to obtain approval of a fiscal year 1981 program to mature the selected SAW candidate leading to a fiscal year 1982 type classification and procurement. The IPR recommended the XM249 as the weapon which most closely satisfied the requirements for a SAW system. HQDA approved the recommendations on 4 September 1980.
A highly successful program competition for the multiple launch
rocket system (MLRS) contract between the Vought Corporation of Dallas, Texas, and the Boeing Company of Seattle, Washington, was concluded in April 1980 when the Army awarded an advanced development and low rate production contract to Vought. This award was made after evaluating the results of more than 200 test firings and observing the performance of each company’s system hardware during numerous tests and evaluations which were conducted during the preceding six months. Sixty days of this evaluation were performed under simulated tactical conditions.
Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability (RSI)
Over the past year, the Army continued RSI and Host Nation Support (HNS) initiatives in the areas of policy guidance, doctrine formulation, combat service support negotiation, and hardware programs. Army RSI policies and responsibilities, contained in Army Regulation 34-2, were written to incorporate policy changes reflected in a revised DODD 2010-6. While basic policy and objectives remain unchanged, the RSI program scope was expanded to include all allies and friends. Continued emphasis was placed on implementation of the NATO long term defense program (LTDP); support of the OSD/JCS high-priority areas; standardization of doctrine, requirements and procedures; interoperability and standardization of weapon systems and equipment.
Priority areas continued to be intensively managed throughout the PPBS. LTDP actions required of the Army continued as a priority item in the NATO defense planning questionnaire. MACOMs conducted training emphasizing interoperability and mutual exchange of ideas and procedures. RSI conferences were held at TRADOC, DARCOM, and WESTCOM.
A significant development was the initiation of ARSTAF dialogue with the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force. Potential for great progress in RSI initiatives with Japan exists and will receive more attention.
The Army continued to explore HNS as an alternative method of providing combat service support in all theaters. Detailed HNS requirements were developed and passed through OSD to the Ministries of Defense (MODs) in Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg between January and August of 1980. These requirements address a full system of support necessary to augment U.S. combat service support capabilities to receive, move, and sustain forward stationed and reinforcing Army units in Europe. Based on these requirements the MODs are developing conceptual plans for support which will require political and economic decisions
in each country prior to implementation. An Army regulation on HNS was drafted, staffed, and scheduled to be published in December 1980. This regulation defines policies, procedures, and responsibilities for the first time as well as establishing an HNS Steering Committee at HQDA. Combined defense improvement projects such as HNS in Korea continued to make considerable progress and will be examined in detail in Total Army Analysis 87.
A U.S. Army program of staff talks with the General Staff of the Army of the Federal Republic of Germany has been held since 1975. An eighth set of formal talks was held in April 1980 at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Both armies continued to follow an operating plan seeking agreement first on major operational concepts; then going on to define selected materiel items; to define and evaluate selected materiel, organizations, and operational concepts; and to cooperate in materiel, training, and logistical requirements. In September 1980 the two Army Chiefs of Staff cosigned a concept paper on electronic warfare and a joint paper on camouflage—bringing to thirteen the number of U.S.-German signed agreements on basic military questions. Six more concepts were in staffing or preparation in 1980. The two armies looked ahead to joint operational concepts for command control, continuous operations, armor forces of the 1990s, land battle of the 1990s, Army requirements for tactical air support, and tactical communications.
Staff talks with the Army of the United Kingdom continued into their third year with formal meetings in Aldershot, England, in October 1979 and at Fort Monroe, Virginia, in March 1980. Conducted in a combat developments framework, the talks with the British have the purpose of developing joint tactical concepts, setting interoperability goals, and selecting materiel requirements with potential for standardization and interoperability. They also provided a forum for an informal exchange of views at the general officer level. During fiscal year 1980, the exchange focused on concepts for land-air operations during the 1990s, command control, countermobility, and Army requirements for tactical air support. A serious exchange of ideas and interests in materiel systems continued. The British remained committed to cooperative U.S.-British-German-French development of the Multiple Launch Rocket System. They continued their interest in the goal of interoperable automated battlefield systems.
The exchange with the French Army staff went into its second year with a second round of talks held in Paris in May 1980. Less formal than the German and British exchanges, the talks with the French emphasized the exchange of ideas at the Army level rather than pursuit of formal agreements. The May talks centered on the
French and U.S. corps concepts and on concepts for the employment of armed helicopters.
In May 1978, the United States Air Force began conversion from JP-4 to JP-8 fuel in the United Kingdom. Conversion in continental Europe will begin as soon as practicable. The purpose is to standardize fuel now being used by most NATO and commercial aircraft in Europe.
The thirteenth meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Ad Hoc Working Group #4 on fuels met at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, during the period 1-3 September 1980. Its purpose was to discuss the progress which has been made on conversion from JP-4 to JP-8 in Europe. A representative from the Office of Energy, Environment and Safety, Office, Secretary of Defense, headed the U.S. contingent. He advised the working group that as a result of a market analysis made by Defense Fuels Supply Center, there is a real concern about price and availability of JP-4 compared to JP-8 on the European continent. The U.S. Army advised that modifications were required for AH-1, UH-1, OH-58, and CH-47 helicopters to meet cold start requirements at -25°F with JP-8 fuel. It is estimated that these modifications will cost about $54 million in fiscal year 1980 dollars and take four years to complete.
The Federal Republic of Germany representative gave a prepared statement advising that price and availability are major issues. JP-8 could cost Germany an additional 70 million Deutschmarks per year over JP-4. Germany proposed the following:
a. All concerned continue to adapt fixed and rotary wing aircraft to use JP-8 under all conditions, thereby achieving interoperability regardless of which fuel is used.
b. Remain with JP-4 fuel and not set a firm conversion date to JP-8 until market price and availability become acceptable. Norway, Canada, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, and Greece tentatively supported the German proposal subject to formal approval by their respective governments.
The Army does not agree with the German proposal to modify aircraft regardless of a decision on conversion. TRADOC has the task of evaluating user requirements, in conjunction with the impact in dollars, time, and other resources needed to modify these aircraft to meet the cold start requirement. TRADOC’s evaluation and position will be forwarded to Department of the Army for review.
In October 1976, the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding with ten other NATO nations for testing and selection of a second standard caliber of small arms ammunition (the present NATO standard 7.62-mm. will continue as standard) and possibly a
weapon system for the post-1980 timeframe. The United States entered the M16A1 rifle and the improved 5.56-mm. (SM77 and XM778) cartridges as candidates and provided the M16A1 rifle with standard M193/196 ammunition as control. Testing of candidate systems was completed in June 1979. The International Test Control Commission and Panels of Experts analyzed the test data and issued a final report in May 1980. This report concluded that:
a. 5.56-mm. should be adopted as the second standard NATO caliber for small arms.
b. The Belgian SS109 ammunition should be used as the basis for a 5.56-mm. STANAG (Standardization Agreement).
c. No recommendation be made for standardization of an individual or light support weapon.
On 22 October 1980, the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD), NATO, approved the recommendation to adopt 5.56-mm. as the second standard NATO caliber for small arms.
Since World War II, almost no work has been done in fixed-installation camouflage. Increased potential adversary air strength and advances in thermal infrared and microwave target acquisition devices have now put a premium on concealment and deception. Under authority of AR 530-1, the Corps of Engineers is conducting a program to update the Army’s capability in fixed-installation camouflage. The program involves two major NATO groups and emphasizes techniques to defeat manned aircraft employing visual, infrared or microwave target acquisition devices by camouflage of key elements at installations. Theoretical modeling work and field data collection efforts are being combined in a field trial under the NATO Special Group of Experts for Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception. The Corps is directing this experiment in which West Germany, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Denmark are participating.
The United States signed general reciprocal procurement memorandums of understanding with Denmark and Turkey in March 1980. Negotiations with Greece on a similar understanding are in progress.
In August 1980 the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany signed a family of weapons agreement on air-to-air missiles, with the United States designated to develop a medium range missile and the Europeans to develop a short range version.
In March 1980 the United States signed a memorandum of understanding with France, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany for an information exchange concerning antitank guided weapons to determine the feasibility of an antitank
guided weapons family of weapons agreement. Discussions are under way in regard to air delivered munitions and a family of naval mines. A four-nation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in July 1979 by the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany to develop the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) represented a substantive breakthrough in achieving cooperation among NATO allies. By funding most of the research and development, the United States is taking the lead. France and the United Kingdom are contributing to the R&D expenses for the basic system, which consists of a self-propelled launcher loader and a conventional rocket that holds in excess of 600 high-explosive rounds. Germany’s share of the R&D program is to develop a scatterable mine warhead that will deliver antitank mines to ranges in excess of 30 kilometers. As the production line makes the equipment available, the four partners have made tentative commitments to procure and field the basic MLRS. Negotiations started in fiscal year 1980 for the Concept Initial Program Definition (CIPD) for the terminally-guided warhead.
In September 1980 the President approved in principle a program of cooperation with the Federal Republic of Germany for the modernization of their Pershing Ia missile system. Discussions with the German government were inititated in the same month.
Foreign country interest in Improved Hawk continued in fiscal year 1980. Such interest was based on a country’s desire to modernize its air defense, procure a higher technology, or to upgrade its defensive posture against an actual or perceived threat. Fiscal year 1980 saw the addition of Egypt and Singapore to the list of foreign countries that have bought Improved Hawk, bringing the total to nineteen.
During the year, the Army continued to support NATO in its investigation of multinational cooperation in the acquisition of the Patriot Air Defense Missile System. The NATO Patriot steering committee established a working group to explore common logistic support concepts and the NATO Patriot Management Office (NAPATMO) solicited cost estimates from European industry to ascertain the most economical method for the NATO partners to acquire the system to replace their Nike Hercules. The NATO Patriot Acquisition Study is scheduled for completion in October 1982. It will be followed by an acquisition preparation phase during which the management organization will be established and contracts or FMS cases will be implemented.
Return to Table of Contents
Last updated 17 September 2004