Novel Fighting Vehicles Fuel Demand for Modem Munitions.

On the U.S. Arm/s wish list is an arsenal of novel armaments and precision-guided munitions--an eclectic mix of sophisticated guns, smart projectiles and compact missiles.

Fueling the desire for new weapons is the introduction--during the next decade or two--of new armored combat vehicles: a mobile gun platform that will fire 105 mm rounds and a still-undefined ultramodern Future Combat System.

Bringing this technology to fruition will take decades and cost billions of dollars. It is all part of the Army's plan to "transform" from a heavy Cold War juggernaut to a nimbler force that can deploy quickly but still has enough killing power to survive.

The 105 mm mobile gun system--a smaller weapon than the popular 120 mm cannon--will be provided to units called "brigade combat teams," which currently are being set up and trained at Fort Lewis, Wash. The Army plans to field up to eight BCTs during the next decade. The Future Combat System (FCS), meanwhile, is being designed for the so-called "objective force," a term used to describe the Army of 2020 and beyond.

The Army has not defined the armaments that it wants for FCS, but in-house scientists and contractors have been told to work on "multi-role" systems that can perform both direct and indirect fire missions. That would mark a drastic departure from the Army's traditional make-up, where heavy gunnery and artillery units each have distinct vehicles and weapons. The weight of the FCS cannot exceed 20 tons, in order to be transportable by C-130 tactical cargo aircraft. Current ranks weigh 70 tons.

Since the service's chief, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, launched the "transformation" initiative 18 months ago, the Army has been racing to meet ambitious deadlines for deploying lighter, more easily transportable equipment. The mobile gun system was expected to enter the force by 2002, but the contract awarded to GM Canada/General Dynamics Land Systems is on hold, as a result of a protest by competitor United Defense LP (UDLP).

The FCS is a long-term effort, but nevertheless, Shinseki said he would like to see it in the field by 2012.

Even before any of these new combat vehicles enters the force, the Army wants to have advanced precision-guided munitions that also would be used with existing heavy platforms, such as the battle-proven Abrams tank and the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, which is still in development and will not be available until 2008.

Based on today's requirements for new smart munitions, the Army needs about $20 billion to procure and maintain the stockpile, said Col. James Naughton, acting depury chief of staff for ammunition at the Army Materiel Command.

The service's precision-guided munitions program has suffered delays both as a result of budget cutbacks and technological slips, Naughron said at a conference sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association.

Given the slow pace of the program, said Naughton, the desired quantities of precision munitions for fiscal year 2007 will not be achieved until 2017.

Only a small percentage of the Army's ammunition budget is spent on guided smart munitions. In fiscal 2001, the Army spent $1 billion on conventional ammunition, also known as "dumb" rounds.

Controversial Decision

The decision to purchase a 105 mm gun system sparked some controversy within the Army and with industrialists, who wondered whether these rounds could be produced cost-effectively, given that the Army has not bought any 105 mm tank ammunition since the Vietnam War. These rounds were used in the Abrams' predecessors, the M60 and M48 tanks.

Col. David Ogg, project manager for armor systems, said the Army plans to buy a new 105 mm bunker-buster round, able to defeat a standard infantry bunker and create an opening in double-reinforced concrete walls large enough for a soldier and equipment to pass through. It also must be able to defeat earth and chamber bunkers.

Up to 15,000 rounds a year could be purchased, said Rob Morris, project manager for medium-caliber tank ammunition at the Arm/s Operations Support Command.

If the mobile gun program moves forward, after the protest is resolved, each BCT will receive 27 vehicles, for a total buy of 204 systems.

Because domestic production facilities for 105 mm ammunition are obsolete, Morris said, "We will entertain foreign solutions produced in the United States. ... We will provide the old technical data. Although it's not of much use. Most of the processes no longer exist." The fuzes, for example, must be modernized. The Army's Lone Star ammunition plant, in Texas, used to make 105 mm rounds, but shut down the line several years ago. The Iowa Army plant is the only organic facility where 105 mm ammo could be produced.

A contract for the bunker buster may be awarded by late 2002.

"Industry will compete vigorously" for this award, said Richard G. Palaschak, director of the munitions industrial base task force, an advocacy group composed of 13 ammunition manufacturers. The 105 mm has not been produced in 20-25 years, he said in an interview. "Technical data packages have to be scrubbed and validated to accommodate new technology."

Palaschak believes that the Army is not investing enough money to develop modern manufacturing capabilities. "The technology needed for propellants is nor funded. They need to invest in manufacturing technology to get the 105 mm ready for testing."

Robert Harris, president of Armtec Defense, said the 105 mm ammo requirement for the mobile gun "dilutes and complicates the industrial base." The problem, he said, is that "few research and development dollars are available to increase the lethality of the 105 mm round."

As far as funding is concerned, the Army is about $120 million short--over five years--of what it needs to buy the ammunition for the BCTs, said Maj. Gen. William Bond, Army assistant deputy chief of staff for operations and plans for force development. "We have a significant shortfall in smart, precision munitions, especially in the fight at 40 kilometers," said Bond. "How will the Army get industry to produce affordable 105 mm rounds?" he asked at the NDIA conference. The answer to that question, he offered, is "You are going to have to change the way you do things."

The Army, to be sure, has been inconsistent in its approach to smart-munitions development. Artillery platforms have used smart munitions for many years. But the technology has not been employed in tank munitions. There is an ongoing competition to develop a 120 mm kinetic energy round called TERM (tank extended range munition). The Army plans to buy as many as 22,000 TERM rounds over six years. The price rag is estimated at $30,000 a piece. The Army has yet to select a contractor.

On the artillery side, a program called Sadarm (sense-and-destroy munitions) began in the mid-1980s and has been plagued by delays and cost-overruns. The Army had touted the 155 mm artillery-fired anti-tank Sadarm as a cornerstone technology in its smart-munitions program. But it withdrew financial support for the system in fiscal 2001 in order to free up dollars for the transformation effort.

The Army Science Board last year criticized the service for killing Sadarm. The panel said we made a mistake," noted Bond. "We are currently relooking at Sadarm very hard."

If the program survives, the Sadarm rounds would cost about $30,000 a piece. They would be fired by the Crusader howitzer. UDLP, however, recently acquired the Swedish ammo manufacturer Bofors, makers of a so-called Bonus round, which could be used in place of Sadarm. The 155 mm Bonus sensor-fuzed artillery shells are similar to Sadarm and currently are in production, said a UDLP source. Bonus rounds are designed to destroy ranks as far away as 35 km.

Another smart satellite-guided round, in development by the Raytheon Co., is the 155 mm XM982 Excalibur extended-range artillery projectile, which can be adapted for special-purpose warheads--antipersonnel, Sadarm and unitary--within a common airframe and guidance system.

If Excalibur does not come to fruition, the Crusader program again may employ a Bofors product, the micro-wave/satellite-guided "trajectory correctable munition. TCM is in development and could serve as an alternative to the Excalibur round, said the UDLP source.

In the big picture of Army weapon programs, however, a bigger nuisance looming for Crusader is the futuristic FCS. If FCS works as promised, it will obliterate the lines between tank gunnery and artillery, thus diminishing the relevancy of Crusader for indirect-fire missions.

"FCS is Crusader at half the weight," said retired Army Gen. David Maddox, former commander of the V Corps in Europe and now a consultant for UDLP. Maddox does not believe that FCS will be able to deliver the long-range fire capability that Crusader offers until at least 2030, he told reporters during a briefing at UDLP's plant in Minneapolis.

A retired general who ran the Army's combat vehicle center at Fort Knox noted that the traditional distinction between targets that would be engaged by ranks or by artillery "started to blur big time" in the 1980s, when the Army considered the option of having ranks fire precision long-range munitions. "You no longer were required to look directly at a target," said the officer, who did nor want to be quoted by name. Improvements in command and control, as well as in guidance technologies enable a tanker "to shoot at targets he can't see, just like the artillery."

Tanks accomplished artillery-fire missions in the past, he said. Most notably in the Korean War, where U.S. troops didn't have enough artillery so they brought tank units and put them up on higher elevations, where they would shoot indirect fires, supporting or supplementing the artillery. "If you put a tank up on a ramp, you can shoot our to 3040 km." Crusader's range is about 40-50 km.

In an Army where conservatism tends to prevail, the FCS program is challenging many established notions about the organization of combat units.

Mobility, Lethality

The Army's chief scientist, Michael Andrews, said that the FCS multi-role cannon will perform both direct and indirect fire. It will perform "artillery-like action on the move ... [with] Abrams-type lethality."

The current rank weighs 70 tons and has 650 cubic feet of internal volume. The FCS will be 20 tons or less and have 300-400 cubic feet of internal volume.

A single type of round--expected to be 105 mm--will shoot short, medium and long-range fires, relying on a suite of multi-mode warheads to defeat ranks, infantry, helicopters and armored personnel carriers.

For beyond-line-of-sight fires, between 4 km and 12 km, the challenge is to develop munitions that can survive a gun launch of at least 10,000 Gs (gravity forces), Andrews said during a briefing to the Association of the U.S. Army, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

A key technological shortfall is this arena is the guidance electronics, called inertial measurement units, he said. "We don't have low-cost IMUs that can [survive the gun launch], with accuracy for reaching our Andrews' office started a $100 million five-year program to develop affordable IMUs that can survive the high Gs.

Achieving the lethality of 120 mm projectiles in a smaller 105 mm is a significant technical challenge, industry sources said. The U.S. Army has a large inventory of obsolete dumb 105 mm bombs, but has no smart munitions of that caliber. The more costly items are the subcomponents such as sensors, command and control and inertial navigation units.

For the FCS multi-role ammunition, the Army has nor yet decided whether it will be a 105 mm, said Mark A. Ford, project manager at Picatinny Arsenal. There is a "caliber study" under way, he told National Defense during the conference in Fort Lauderdale. The study is considering everything from 90 mm to 155 mm. "FCS is nor locked into 105 mm," he said. The 105 mm program for the mobile gun system is not tied to FCS.

Some of the toughest technological hurdles, he explained, are the cannons electro-thermal chemical propulsion--electric energy converted to high temperature plasma--and recoil mitigation, given the higher recoil forces associated with lighter vehicles.

Experts said that electro-thermal chemical propulsion makes it possible to control the ignition of the propellant very precisely and helps to manage recoil forces.

The FCS platform, said Ford, will need to be capable of -120 to +55 degree elevations for direct, indirect and anti-air fire.

A smart ammo suite will be needed for FCS. Various companies already are jockeying for position in the contest, even though the Army has not selected the size of the round and, therefore, has nor set up an acquisition strategy.

Among those competing for future contract awards are ammunition powerhouses Alliant Defense Electronic Systems Inc., teamed with German/s Rheinmetall; and General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, which is proposing a round made by Israel Military Industries Ltd. (IMI). Alliant also is considering a reaming arrangement with a Canadian manufacturer of 105 mm, SNC Defence. The Raytheon Co. plans to compete in the FCS ammo suite program, by taking advantage of its expertise in missiles.

Rich H. Rosch, Alliant's manager of business development, said the company is adapting its 120 mm TERM technology to a 105 mm round. "It is a direct application of what we've been working on since the 1980s," he said in an interview. "We have demonstrated maturity of all the systems and the integration. We can move into the 105 very rapidly and at very little risk."

If the Army chose not to use a kinetic-energy round, the same technology could be adapted to carry a chemical-energy warhead, Rosch said. Another version of the warhead, for example, could have submunitions or bomblets. Alliant's TERM round has a multi-mode seeker that includes a semi-active laser, a GPS satellite guidance system and a millimeter wave. "This seeker has been sized for the current range requirements," he said.

The GD/IMI ream is proposing a 105 mm anti-personnel, anti-materiel (APAM) cartridge and an M426 kinetic-energy anti-tank round. APAM can function both as an air-burst munition, top-attack mode against dismounted troops, as well as a unitary high-energy round against bunkers. IMI officials said that APAM currently is in production for the Israeli Defense Forces. The company is marketing APAM and M425 primarily for the mobile gun system.

The Raytheon Co. is competing for the 120 mm extended-range TERM round, which would be adapted to the 105 mm size for the FCS ammo suite, said Steve Ignar, the company's business development manager for land combat systems.

The strategy for Raytheon is to apply its tri-mode seeker technology to various programs, in order to make it more affordable, Ignat said in an interview. The seeker, for example, is applicable to the TERM projectile, the FCS ammo suite and the "common missile" program, which will replace the Army's TOW and Hellfire tactical anti-tank missiles. The Army is conducting an industry competition for the common missile.

Within the FCS program, Raytheon is responsible for the development of a missile-box called "netfires." Often referred to as "missiles in a box," netfires is a containerized, platform-independent system that would help soldiers fire missiles by remote control. The box would contain, for example, loiter-attack and precision-guided munitions.

Raytheon's strategy of "spreading technology over everything" presents some problems, however, said Alliant's Rosch.

"A seeker that works in a missile and a seeker that works in a gun are two drastically different animals. G-forces require a different approach," he said. He also is skeptical that this technology can be made affordable for the Army, where ammunition is nor viewed as a high-ticket item. "High-performance seekers, radar, infrared imagery comes at a high cost."

Alliant's approach, he said, is to "keep it as simple as possible, because the thing that kills every smart-munition program that comes down the pipe is that the Army develops it and then says it's too expensive."

Rosch speculated that for the FCS ammo suite to be affordable, the Army will have to stick with the 105 mm caliber so that it can rake advantage of the BCT program. "I am hoping that the requirements for the mobile gun system will be linked to the requirements for FCS so we can rake one thing and exploit across the whole family. It's the only way the Army will be able to afford it."

10-Ton Vehicle?

For a 20-ton vehicle, such as the FCS, the sheer weight of a gun is a problem, said William C. McCorkle Jr., director of the Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC).

The M1A1 Abrams gun weighs 6,600 pounds. "Guns are heavy," McCorkle said.

In his opinion, the FCS could be slimmed to 10 tons if it did not have a gun and relied entirely on kinetic-energy missiles. The survivability odds of a 10-ton vehicle are not much worse than those of a 20-ton platform, McCorkle said. "The difference is minimal in close combat. Neither one is very survivable."

The hitch in McCorkle's proposition is that it assumes the Army can develop a lightweight kinetic-energy missile that it can afford.

Seeking to bring about such a weapon is the CKEM (compact kinetic energy missile) program. George W Snyder, project manager at AMRDEC, said the goal is to design a missile that is half the size of the Losar (line-of-sight antitank missile), scheduled to begin production in 2004. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is building 11 Losats to be tested by the Army's 82nd airborne division. Losar is 9.75 feet long and weighs 174 pounds. Launched from a Humvee truck, it can reach targets out to 4 km. "It will help users understand how kinetic energy missiles perform in the battlefield," said Snyder.

If CKEM progresses as the Army hopes, it will be 4.5 feet long and weigh 85 pounds. Ideally, officials said, the Army would like it to be 50 pounds. "It won't be the ultra-lethal variety," said McCorkle. "But it may be sufficient."

Three competitors are vying for a CKEM award: Raytheon Co., Lockheed Martin's missile division in Dallas and a small firm in Huntsville, Ala., Miltech Corp., teamed with the Boeing Co.

A fourth competitor, Alliant Defense, was eliminated, because its proposed missile was powered by a ramjet, a technology the Army considered too risky.

"Kinetic energy is wonderful," said Rosch. "If you can put a Losar on a Humvee and send it with the 18th airborne corps, that gives them a capability they didn't have," he said in an interview. "But there are some problems. Losar has a huge signature. Reloading a 174-pound, 7-foot missile is a hard thing for light infantry to do."

Lockheed Martin's CKEM version has a solid rocket motor, said Randy D. Tarum, manager of business development. He did not want to discuss his proposed guidance technology for CKEM, for competitive reasons.

It would be impossible to shrink the Losar missile by half and make it work, Tatum said in an interview. CKEM requires an entirely new design, to make it fly faster and to improve the penetration. "The long pole in the CKEM program is the propellant technology. To make it as lethal as a full-size missile, you have to make it fly a lot faster than Losat. That means you have to put a more energetic propellant on it."

Raytheon's Ignat is optimistic about the CKEM program. The company will conduct a firing demonstration this summer with the Norwegian firm Nammo Raufoss. The goal is to prove that a missile smaller then Losat will exceed its performance, said Ignat. "We think it's doable," he added.

Part of the company's strategy is to build a CKEM-type missile that can be fired from the Army's 7,500 TOW platforms currently in the inventory. The common missile and CKEM have to be able to fire from the same launcher, Ignar said. "Our goal is to show that we can get the kinetic energy out of a smaller airframe, and we can make that missile fir into currently fielded launchers."

Asked about McCorkle's idea of replacing the FCS gun with kinetic-energy missiles, Ignat said that both weapons are needed. "There is a role for both. It's not an if-and-or situation."

Lockheed Martin's Tarum agreed. A 105 mm gun can't slug it out with modern armor, he said. Small projectiles can't defeat tanks like kinetic-energy missiles can. "You need both the gun and the missiles," he asserted.

Bullets, however, are a lot cheaper than missiles. Nevertheless, said Tatum, "to say you are going to make the vehicle lighter by slapping a bunch of missiles on it [is a spurious argument] ... You just can't get there because you can't address the same targets.

Missiles are too expensive, said Rosch. The Army can barely afford $30,000 bullets, he said, let alone $50,000 CKEM missiles that would perform a similar role.