XM803 Tank. In connection with our land forces, the Army's tank program today is focused primarily on the continued development of its new main battle tank, the XM803. As I reported to you last year, the joint effort to develop a single tank with the Federal Republic of Germany has been terminated. Since then, the Army's efforts have been directed toward developing the austere version--the XM803 -- with the goal of reducing the average unit production cost to about $600,000 in FY 1970 dollars. The program will be reviewed as the development and testing progress and we intend to authorize production only when we are sure the development is complete and the cost acceptable. The resulting tank would still have all of the essential characteristics which will enable it to counter the tanks which the Soviets are capable of producing and are likely to field in the 1980's: a 152 mm gun capable of firing a new high velocity armorpiercing round and launching the Shillelagh anti-tank missile, as well as spaced armor, low silhouette, passive night vision, and fire-on-the-move capability. But some of the less critical features have been either eliminated or modified to save money. We are requesting $87 million in FY 1972 to continue development and Advanced Production Engineering for the XM803, which will include procurement of second generation pilot hardware, testing of components, and development of training devices. The Secretary of the Army will be prepared to discuss the details of scheduling and proposed funding for the XM803. M60 Tank. To continue improvement and retrofit of the M60series tanks, $46 million is included in the FY 1972 Budget. Of this, $13.3 million will be used for a modest product improvement program to upgrade the M60 and M60A1 tanks, which are the Army's standard tanks today. These improvements are to give the M60series tanks better performance and longer life. The remainder is to apply corrective modifications to 210 of the M60A1E2 tanks which the Army has procured in previous years. The M60A1E2 is essentially an M60 tank with a modified turret and armament system which allows it to fire both conventional ammunition and the Shillelagh antitank missile. Fixes for the technical difficulties in turret stabilization, which slowed this retrofit program, have been identified. The Army assures me that the testing of these fixes is proceeding satisfactorily. In addition, the Army plans to continue its procurement of M60A1 tank vehicles. The FY 1972 Budget includes $41 million to procure 90 M60A1 tanks and 60 Bridge Launcher Chassis. This procurement, together with the M60A1E2 modification program discussed above, will keep production at the minimum sustaining rate. a. Ground Combat Capability XM803 Tank. In connection with our land forces, the Army's tank program today is focused primarily on the continued development of its new main battle tank, the XM803. As I reported to you last year, the joint effort to develop a single tank with the Federal Republic of Germany has been terminated. Since then, the Army's efforts have been directed toward developing the austere version the XM803 -- with the goal of reducing the average unit production cost to about $600,000 in FY 1970 dollars. The program will be reviewed as the development and testing progress and we intend to authorize production only when we are sure the development is complete and the cost acceptable. The resulting tank would still have all of the essential characteristics which will enable it to counter the tanks which the Soviets are capable of producing and are likely to field in the 1980's: a 152 mm gun capable of firing a new high velocity armorpiercing round and launching the Shillelagh anti-tank missile, as well as spaced armor, low silhouette, passive night vision, and fire-on-the-move capability. But some of the less critical features have been either eliminated or modified to save money. We are requesting $87 million in FY 1972 to continue development and Advanced Production Engineering for the XM803, which will include procurement of second generation pilot hardware, testing of components, and development of training devices. The Secretary of the Army will be prepared to discuss the details of scheduling and proposed funding for the XM803. M60 Tank. To continue improvement and retrofit of the M60series tanks, $46 million is included in the FY 1972 Budget. Of this, $13.3 million will be used for a modest product improvement program to upgrade the M60 and M60A1 tanks, which are the Army's standard tanks today. These improvements are to give the M60series tanks better performance and longer life. The remainder is to apply corrective modifications to 210 of the M60A1E2 tanks which the Army has procured in previous years. The M60A1E2 is essentially an M60 tank with a modified turret and armament system which allows it to fire both conventional ammunition and the Shillelagh antitank missile. Fixes for the technical difficulties in turret stabilization, which slowed this retrofit program, have been identified. The Army assures me that the testing of these fixes is proceeding satisfactorily. In addition, the Army plans to continue its procurement of M60A1 tank vehicles. The FY 1972 Budget includes $41 million to procure 90 M60A1 tanks and 60 Bridge Launcher Chassis. This procurement, together with the M60A1E2 modification program discussed above, will keep production at the minimum sustaining rate. - Tow and Dragon. To complement its tank capability, the Army is moving ahead with procurement of its new anti-tank missile systems for the infantry Tow and Dragon for which we are requesting $103 million in FY 1972. The Tow is the heavy anti-tank weapon used by infantry battalions. Last year the Army reevaluated a proposal to use the Shillelagh missile instead of Tow in the infantry ground mode, in response to strong Congressional interest in this possibility. The Army's findings were that Shillelagh offered no technical or operational advantages over the Tow, and this action would not promise any significant cost savings. Furthermore, adaptation of Shillelagh would delay equipping of NATO-oriented units with a new anti-tank system by three or four years. For this reason, we decided last year to continue Tow procurement. At the present time, we are well into a multi-year procurement program for this system; in FY 1972 we plan to continue buying the Tow at the minimum sustaining rate. Meanwhile, the Army has sufficient prior year funds to equip its forces in Germany and some of its forces here in the United States with the Tow launcher and a partial supply of missiles. The Dragon is the lighter weight anti-tank system, designed to be handcarried by our most forward ground combat elements. It, too, is destined primarily for our European-based forces. The Dragon goes into initial production in FY 1972, and funds for the first year's increment are included in our current budget request. The budget also includes $4 million to begin Advance Production Engineering (APE) for equipping COBRA helicopters to carry the Tow missile. We believe that our attack helicopter programs also will significantly improve our anti-armor capability. Lance. Procurement of the Lance missile system is planned for FY 1972 and $84 million is included for this purpose. This system will replace the Honest John and Sergeant system, both of which are approaching the end of their useful life. Lance will have a primary nuclear as well as a conventional warhead capability, and with greater mobility and quicker reaction time, will provide our ground forces in Europe with considerably increased survivable firepower. In addition, these improved characteristics will allow the Army to replace Honest John and Sergeant battalions with Lance on a better than one-for-one ratio that will produce significant savings in manpower. OH-58A. The major Army aircraft procurement planned in FY 1972 is 400 OH-58A light observation helicopters, to replace obsolete OH-13 and OH-23 helicopters. These modern helicopters will provide battlefield commanders a significantly greater capability for reconnaissance, target acquisition, and command and control. We have included $35 million for OH-58A procurement for the final year of a multi-year contract. UH-1. No FY 1972 funds are included for procurement of the larger UH-1 "Huey" helicopters for the Army, although deliveries - will continue through the period. Advanced Attack Helicopter. The FY 1972 Budget contains funds for continued development of the CHEYENNE advanced attack helicopter. It is a far better weapons system than the COBRA, and offers the sort of major technological improvement that the Army needs to implement its air mobility concept. We have included $13 million in the budget for CHEYENNE advanced production engineering. b. Close Air Support Our combat experience in Vietnam has again underlined the importance of close air support for ground forces. In addition, our new concepts of air mobile warfare have led us to conclude that both organically assigned attack helicopter gunships providing direct suppressive fire support and heavier support in depth from attack aircraft do contribute to this role. We are proposing in the FY 1972 Budget to continue development of both the A-X and attack helicopters because we believe they complement each other, through overlapping zones of coverage and diverse operating modes. At the present time, we believe that a mix of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters permits a variety of operation and deployment possibilities, a factor that may become increasingly important in the future. However, in view of the continued interest of the Congress in this area, we have established a working group to evaluate the close air support issue. Their evaluation will be completed before a production decision is made on either the CHEYENNE or the A-X. A-X. We have included $47 million in the budget to continue development of the A-X, an Air Force program designed to provide a modern aircraft to meet the heavier close air support mission. A-X procurement could begin in FY 1974. The A-X design will be chosen using a competitive prototype program, in which a "fly off" will be held between the two designs to determine which aircraft will be developed. In this way, we hope to continue to move away from production based on paper studies and toward a "fly before buy" policy. Although the A-X design emphasizes close air support of our troops, this aircraft also will have the capability to carry out interdiction missions behind enemy lines, and armed escort, reconnaissance and search operations. The A-X will increase our antitank capability, thereby providing greater support for our ground forces. |