by Tom Clancy
For now such dreams will remain in the design shops of FMC and the halls of TACOM in Warren, Michigan. Money for new systems is very scarce right now, and the effort to design and field the -A3 Bradley will have to wait its turn in the funding cycle. And more mature programs, such as the M1A2 and the AH-64 C/D Longbow Apache, which are in production or testing, have a higher priority. Nevertheless, sometime around the dawn of the 21st century, watch for a new version of the Bradley to take its place among the newest digital systems fielded by the U.S. Army.
The XM8 Armored Gun System
Quietly tucked into a corner of the manufacturing floor at FMC’s San Jose, California, plant is an assembly line that may be soon producing one of the most exciting armored vehicles in history, the XM8 Armored Gun System (AGS). Actually a highly capable light tank (that term having fallen out of favor within the U.S. Army), the XM8 is a response to the problem of light cavalry, infantry, and airborne forces lacking an armored punch.
XM8 Armored Gun System. Note the driver’s hatch with panoramic vision blocks. The rather narrow tracks are indicative of the vehicle’s light weight.
FMC CORPORATION
The idea of a light tank is that it can destroy anything weaker and hide or run away from anything stronger. At less than half the weight and half the cost of a main battle tank, but carrying a nearly equivalent weapon, a light tank theoretically gives you more bang for the buck. In practice, light tanks have usually proven to be more expensive, less effective, and less survivable than their designers hoped (which is why the term “light tank” is out of favor) .
Since the Vietnam War, armored fire support for light forces has been the job of the M551 Sheridan light tank. Unfortunately, the M551 never lived up to expectations, and has been a disappointment to its users. Its aluminum armor proved ineffective against hand-held anti-tank weapons in Vietnam, and its complex 152mm gun/missile launcher was chronically unreliable. It also had a nasty habit of shedding a track in tight turns. In fact, the only really quality service the Sheridan has been able to give the Army has been as a cheap and available chassis for the OPFOR teams who simulate enemy tank battalions at the NTC at Fort Irwin, California. Today (early 1994), the last active combat unit equipped with the M551 is the airborne tank battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division. And the only reason it remains is that the Sheridans can (just barely) be airdropped. Other than that, the Army would just as soon scrap them.
But the failure of one weapons system in no way eliminates the need and mission for light armored support to light infantry, cavalry, and airborne troops. In fact, the need has grown with the loss of basing rights for American forces (such as in the Philippines) in the 1980s and 1990s. And while General Sullivan plans to keep eight full combat brigades’ worth of equipment on ships ready to steam, there still will be a need to airlift rapid-response forces into a crisis area. To fill this need, the Army initiated the AGS program in the 1980s, to provide a light, survivable armored vehicle with good firepower that could be air-transported almost anywhere. A competition was held, and FMC was declared the winner. Six XM8 prototypes will be completed by the fall of 1994. If the program stays on schedule, the first unit of XMBs, an airborne armored battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, will come on-line in the fall of 1997.
The XM8 has an aluminum hull and turret, and is armed with a soft-recoil 105mm gun capable of firing the same ammunition as the early versions of the M1 Abrams. The Army has adapted an autoloader from the U.S. Navy’s 5” Mk-45 gun mount to handle and load the shells in the AGS. It can hold up to twenty-one ready 105mm rounds and nine more in storage compartments in the front of the vehicle. It will be capable of loading a fresh round every five seconds, and should be quite reliable, based on the history of the naval gun mount and initial tests. Because of the autoloader, the crew of the XM8 has been reduced to just three, with the driver in the front hull, and the gunner and commander on the right side of the compact turret. There is a thermal sight for the commander and gunner, as well as a 1553 data bus linking all of the vehicle systems. And plans are being made to possibly add an IVIS-style inter-vehicular network system. Powered by a 550-hp diesel engine with a hydromechanical automatic transmission, the XM8 will be capable of speeds up to 45 mph/74 kph, depending on the terrain and the installed armor package.
Exterior view of XM4 Command and Control Vehicle. The very tall (10-meter /30-foot) antenna telescopes down for stowage on the move.
FMC CORPORATION
The armor is the big innovation on the AGS. In addition to the aluminum hull and turret, there is a layer of silicon carbide (the stuff that industrial drill bits are made of) tiles embedded in resin sheets bolted onto the hull to provide a level of protection similar to that of the -A2 version of the Bradley (called Level I protection). Additional overlay armor can easily be attached to the hull and turret to tailor the armor protection to the mission requirements and anticipated threat levels. Some of the add-on armor is composed of silicon carbide tiles, while other add-on plates are made of titanium or composites. When the Level III package is added, the XM8 is probably more survivable than the late models of the M60 Patton, which is still a formidable tank.
The reason for all of the armor options is that above everything else, the AGS is designed for deployability. Right now, it is just not practical to airmail an armored unit to someplace like Saudi Arabia without crippling the air transport system of the U.S. military. For example, when the 24th Mechanized Infantry went through the berms into Iraq, it had over 6,000 vehicles ranging from M1A1s to HMMWVs! With a C-5 Galaxy (our largest tranport plane) limited to carrying only a single M1 tank, and with only 150 of these priceless birds in service, it might take weeks to deliver a single armored division to the Middle East. But the XM8 is significantly smaller and lighter than an Abrams, and a C-5 can carry up to five with Level III armor installed, ready to roll off. The same C-5 can carry five XM8s with Level II armor and drop them by parachute into a drop zone. Within half an hour of hitting the ground, their crews (without any other supporting personnel) can have them ready to fight. And since a broken vehicle is about as useful as a dead one, the AGS is designed to be supported by a bare minimum of support personnel. For example, the three-man crew can remove the entire power pack in less than ten minutes, and can resupply all of the ammo in less than twenty.
Interior view of the prototype XM4 Command and Control Vehicle (C2V). Note the extensive rack space for computers and radios, and the four very comfortable crew seats.
FMC CORPORATION
The AGS will be the cutting edge of the Army’s light forces in the 21st century. In addition to the tank batallions of the 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault Divisions, the XM8 will equip the new 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). This regiment will provide scouting and screening for XVIII Airborne Corps (composed of the 24th Mechanized, 82nd Airborne, and 101st Air Assault Divisions). Currently, there are plans to buy about 800 XM8s, with requirements for perhaps a thousand more for the light infantry divisions and the Reserve/National Guard force. In addition, Taiwan has expressed an interest in buying some XM8s, so stay tuned for news on this neat little vehicle. It will be a handful when it arrives!
The XM4 Mobile Command Post
The venerable M577 has been around the U.S. Army since the 1960s; and even with the new -A3 version being fielded as of the mid-90s, the simple truth is that the Army needs a new mobile command post. To accommodate this requirement, the Army has contracted with FMC to build a new Command and Control Vehicle (called C2V by FMC) that has been type-classified as the XM4 Mobile Command Post. Built on the same robust chassis used for the MLRS launch vehicle, the C2V, now undergoing tests with the Army, carries a roomy box-like shelter. It is powered by a 600-hp diesel engine. Equipped with ballistic armor capable of stopping light machine-gun fire, and an overpressure/filtration/air-conditioning system, the XM4 will provide field commanders from battalion to corps level with a vehicle capable of conducting operations
even while on the move.
The heart of the system is a flexible set of racks that can hold a variety of radios, computers, and electronic boxes. For example: an armored battalion/armored cavalry squadron command post might have four of the SINCGARS radios as well as command and control terminals tied to the regimental /brigade, company/troop, fire-support, and air-defense radio nets. These radios will be connected to a 33-foot/10-meter-tall erectable mast antenna, as well as to UHF whip antennas that allow the XM4 to command even while on the move. This helps reduce the vulnerability of the C2V to enemy artillery or air strikes that might try to home in on the XM4’s radio transmissions. As for the six-to-eight-man crew, two of them will function as drivers/mechanics, and the rest will be in the back running various systems. And while the accommodations will not exactly be plush, the C2V will be the most comfortable vehicle in the Army. Though such comfort may seem a bit unfair to the line soldier, consider that a commanding officer may only get a few hours sleep a night while being expected to function at full efficiency. This can mean life or death for the soldiers under his command. For this reason, the environmental-control system on the XM4 is the most robust of any vehicle yet produced for Army service. And even the seats are designed to reduce fatigue and help the command crew stay sharp. FMC says that the chairs were modeled on the seats in airport rental-car shuttle buses, which, if you travel a great deal as I do, you know are some of the most comfortable in the world.
The XM5 Electronic Fighting Vehicle
During the 1980s, the Army modernized its battlefield electronic warfare (EW) capabilities. A major innovation was the EH-60 Quick Fix EW helicopter, used successfully during Desert Storm. The EH-60 can rapidly get directional fixes and then jam a variety of different communications, radar, and other electronic systems. Now ground forces will gain a similar capability with the XM5 Electronic Fighting Vehicle (EFV). Utilizing the same basic chassis as the XM4 C2V, it has the same basic enclosure. The only major external differences are a taller erectable antenna mast (98.4 feet/30 meters in height) and a different power system. The interior is roughly similar to the XM4, with similar racks of gear and the same comfortable seats and appointments. What is different are the types and missions of the “black boxes.” These allow the crew of six to eight to scan for enemy transmitters, determine lines of bearing to the targets, pass the enemy positions along the intelligence chain of command (for possible attack by aircraft, helicopters, or artillery), and then, if desired, jam the enemy systems. While the Army and FMC decline to comment on the range of jamming options and how many channels each vehicle might be able to monitor and jam at once, it is clear that the XM5 will be a new ball game for the electronic warriors of the U.S. Army. And with many systems being software-driven, the XM5 will be capable of rapid reconfiguration to meet the changing tactical situations it will inevitably encounter.
U.S. Army Artillery Systems
Ever since the introduction of rifled tube artillery and mortars in the late part of the 19th century, no single class of weapon has caused more casualties than artillery. For no other form of weaponry has the ability to place a greater weight of explosive onto a target. By the close of World War I, artillery shells had grown in weight and capability to a point where proper use of artillery was seen as the key to the success or defeat of any attack or defense. And with the advent of chemical weapons by the Germans, and later by the Allies, a new and more deadly payload had been added to the capabilities of artillery systems. Since that time, nuclear warheads, land mines, cluster munitions, and even laser-homing warheads have come to be fired by the guns—or tubes as they are called by the Army—of the artillery. And the addition of rocket artillery and mortar systems has made the artillery even more powerful.
Shortly before the start of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, many analysts looking at Iraq’s military focused a great deal of attention—and dread—on the huge Iraqi stockpile of tube and rocket artillery, as well as the huge supply of ordnance to fire from them. Armed with a wide variety of systems, from the awesome South African G5 155mm howitzer (designed by the brilliant but mercenary Dr. Gerald Bull) to huge Soviet multiple rocket-launcher systems, the Iraqi artillery could deliver anything from chemical weapons to small mine-fields. So dangerous was the threat that CENTCOM planners in the “black hole” planning center in Riyadh expended almost half of their “battlefield preparation” air strikes on eliminating the thousands of guns and rocket launchers in Kuwait and southern Iraq. And General Norman Schwarzkopf considered the elimination of the Iraqi artillery so essential that he insisted that Allied fliers eliminate at least half of it before he would start the ground offensive. In retrospect, this was probably wise. So for several weeks before G-Day, fliers from all of the Allies and services pounded the Iraqi artillery into silence. The result was that Saddam’s vaunted artillery was scarcely felt by Allied forces on G-Day and after.
Meanwhile, from the very beginning of the air offensive, Allied artillery was integrated with the aerial bombardment effort. Whether it was an artillery raid over the border by Marine 8” self-propelled howitzers, or attacks upon enemy command and control bunkers by Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, the Allied artillery was swift, accurate, and deadly. Every time an Iraqi artillery battery opened up, an Allied artillery spotting radar would track the flight of the shells back to their point of origin, and quickly order a battery of Multiple-Launch Rocket System (MLRS) rocket launchers to destroy it, usually within less than a minute of the Iraqi battery firing its first shells.
Ironically, at a time when artillery has become more deadly than ever, the U.S. Army is phasing out many of the heavy guns that have been its mainstays since the Second World War. Today, monsters like the 175mm and 8” self-propelled howitzers are being retired in favor of new variants of the MLRS and M109. By 1997, only these two systems will be found in the heavy divisions of the Army. Improved performance will have to be based upon better software, data links, and superior warheads. Let’s have a look at them and see how that is being done.
The M270 Multiple-Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
The use of rockets as artillery dates back to roughly the year 1000 AD, when the Chinese used primitive black powder rockets to frighten the horses of their enemies. Eventually, the Chinese, Mongol, and Indian armies had specialized troops whose job was to tactically employ rockets as bombardment artillery, incendiary devices, and possibly as signaling devices for messages between friendly troops. Much later, the British Army adopted an improved version of the black-powder rocket, designed by Sir Walter Congreve, for use in the wars of the Napoleonic period. Such rockets were used to telling effect during the Battle of Bladensberg (just prior to the British burning of Washington, D.C., in 1814), and the bombardment of Fort McHenry near Baltimore (“the rockets’ red glare”). By the time of World War II, improved propellants and explosive payloads had begun to make the rocket into a really effective piece of artillery. The Russians and Germans produced the Katyusha and Nebelwerfer rocket systems for use in the Red Army and Wehrmacht, and both systems were much feared by their adversaries.
The U.S. Army used rocket artillery on a limited basis during the war, but the bulk of the postwar U.S. effort in this area went into guided missiles and nuclear-armed rockets like the Lance and Honest John. Only in the 1970s did the U.S. Army officially perceive a need for rocket artillery. Several factors drove the establishment of the new program that would become Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). One of these was the extensive use of rocket artillery in the armed forces of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet client states around the world. A more practical rationale for acquiring the system was the highly effective performance of Soviet-supplied rocket artillery used by the Egyptians and Syrians against the Israelis during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. The team of U.S. Army officers sent to survey the battlefields after the war noted the effects of the rocket artillery, and reported their findings back home. After reviewing the reports, Army officials decided to initiate a new rocket ar
tillery program for the Army, and this became MLRS.
The Iraqis called it “Steel Rain,” and the name was well deserved. Throughout the 1991 Persian Gulf War, any time an Iraqi artillery battery opened fire, an Iraqi command center began transmitting, or a high-value Iraqi target was found within thirty kilometers of the Allied front lines, ordnance fired from an MLRS would arch into the Arabian sky within a matter of seconds, and rain death and destruction on the Iraqi unit. Such was the power of this new weapon that, early in the war, it was often reserved for the purpose of eliminating Iraqi artillery firing on Coalition troops. Counter-battery fire it is called, and it was the mission of the MLRS batteries deployed by the U.S. and Great Britain to stop the Iraqi guns from firing once they were identified. At this task, and at many others, the MLRS proved to be the most flexible artillery system in the Allied arsenal.
The development of the MLRS system was one of the most trouble-free and efficient Army programs of the entire post-Vietnam period. Requirements for the system were developed by TRADOC; and in 1976, a program office was established at the Army Missile Command at the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. In 1977, the program office initiated a competition between Boeing and LTV Aerospace (now Loral Vought Systems) to be the prime contractor for the effort. Another major program milestone occurred in 1979, when the U.S. Army signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United Kingdom, Germany, and France to produce the MLRS system for export to those NATO nations. Later on, Italy joined the MOU. The Netherlands, Turkey, Greece, Bahrain, Korea, Israel, and Japan are also MLRS users. In 1980, the LTV team was awarded the contract for integration and production of the overall MLRS system, which is built in Camden, Arkansas. The first units were delivered to the U.S. Army in 1982, with the first MLRS units reaching service later that year.
