I think we are getting it at an attractive price with the competition we have between Rockwell and Martin, and as you have often heard Mr. AUCOIN. Let me ask you this: Have funds been requested in the fiscal year 1987 budget for such an effort? Dr. SCULLEY. They have not. Mr. AUCOIN. That is not very serious consideration. Dr. SCULLEY. We must evaluate the possibilities before committing to a system. Mr. AUCOIN. As long ago as 1978, many interested parties in the Congress, this committee among them, were urging the Army to develop a ground-launched Hellfire. The Army declined for reasons which were never completely clear. Are you aware of this history? Dr. SCULLEY. I am aware of the history through discussions with your professional staff. Mr. AUCOIN. What has changed in the intervening years to cause the Army to change its position? General WAGNER. The threat, sir. We could take care of that threat with TOW without difficulty at the time that we first looked at the ground-launched Hellfire. That threat has grown significantly as he has fielded his T-80 and we know he is already working on his future Soviet tanks which he will probably start fielding in about two years. At that time, it will be questionable whether the TOW can take it, at least frontally. He can take it from other angles, but there will be a question there. We can put a simple fix on the TOW today called a tandem warhead and we are going to do that. However, there is a question whether we can get through the future Soviet tanks frontally. If I were going to war, I would field the ground-launched Hellfire. It can be done quickly and relatively cheaply. The problem we have with it is it takes another individual on the ground or airborne to lase for it on the target. It is more complicated. However, we know it will do the job and I feel that if we get in a bind with the threat before we have a follow-on to TOW, this is a system that we should look at very seriously. Mr. CHAPPELL. Would you please provide for the record a description of any planned efforts to develop a ground-launched Hellfire capability, together with a funding profile. [The information follows:] Feasibility of a ground-launched Hellfire has been demonstrated, but the Army has neither an approved program for development nor programmed funding. The Army is however pursuing development of a Hellfire launcher for the UH-60A Black Hawk helicopter, in compliance with direction from Congress. This capability offers advantages over a ground-launched version such as rapid movement about the battlefield, integral communications for command and control, no changes in force structure, terrain obstacles avoidance, etc. Funding appropriated for this program is $15.0 million in FY 84 and $17.0 million in FY 86 for development. Testing is scheduled for completion by the second quarter FY 1987. SENSE AND DESTROY ARMOR PROGRAM (SADARM) Mr. CHAPPELL. The Army is requesting $99.8 million to continue full-scale engineering development of the sense and destroy armor program. The committee has had serious reservations about SADARM in the past, mainly concerning adequate proof of principle, the need for more testing, cost and competition in development and production. Those concerns resulted in the issuance of certain specific directives by the appropriations conference in its fiscal year 1986 report. When will an RFP be issued? General WAGNER. We are having a program review in May, sir, looking at the SADARM. We are looking at two versions of it, a warhead for the MLRS and a warhead for the 155 millimeter round. We would want competition on that. The RFP, the test program and the ROC have all been structured in those two sizes to do that job. Probably the questions that you have on it and most people have had on it is the search pattern on the ground once you dispense it from the system. It does not have the wide area search that some of the other munitions will have. However, we know it can be very effective, for example, against their artillery. It would be a super counter battery system. With some of the systems that we have today for dispensing it, we think it may even be effective against a tank so we are carrying on with that program. Mr. CHAPPELL. When will the RFP be issued? General WAGNER. I will have to provide the specific date. [The information follows:] A competitive RFP is expected to be available in April 1986 for release to industry. Mr. CHAPPELL. Is the date of the RFP dependent on holding an ASARC? Dr. SCULLEY. Yes, sir, and that ASARC is currently scheduled for the third quarter in fiscal year 1986. Mr. CHAPPELL. Since that is true, what consideration has the Army given to issuing the RFP prior to ASARC, and allowing proposal preparation and preparation for ASARC to proceed in parallel? Wouldn't that save time? General WAGNER. Yes, sir. At this time the RFP is to be held up, but we will come back to you on that. [The information follows:] No. The Army intends to release the RFP prior to the formal program review. Mr. CHAPPELL. Give us your plan if you intend to go parallel, because we think it would save a lot of time for you and you agree. Dr. SCULLEY. We do. We expect a four-year full-scale engineering development program after a contract award, so Mr. CHAPPELL. You can't then tell us when you plan to award the contract? General WAGNER. We would release the RFP in April and prob I think we are getting it at an attractive price with the competition we have between Rockwell and Martin, and as you have often heard Mr. AUCOIN. Let me ask you this: Have funds been requested in the fiscal year 1987 budget for such an effort? Dr. SCULLEY. They have not. Mr. AUCOIN. They have not. Dr. SCULLEY. They have not. Mr. AUCOIN. That is not very serious consideration. Dr. SCULLEY. We must evaluate the possibilities before committing to a system. Mr. AUCOIN. As long ago as 1978, many interested parties in the Congress, this committee among them, were urging the Army to develop a ground-launched Hellfire. The Army declined for reasons which were never completely clear. Are you aware of this history? Dr. SCULLEY. I am aware of the history through discussions with your professional staff. Mr. AUCOIN. What has changed in the intervening years to cause the Army to change its position? General WAGNER. The threat, sir. We could take care of that threat with TOW without difficulty at the time that we first looked at the ground-launched Hellfire. That threat has grown significantly as he has fielded his T-80 and we know he is already working on his future Soviet tanks which he will probably start fielding in about two years. At that time, it will be questionable whether the TOW can take it, at least frontally. He can take it from other angles, but there will be a question there. We can put a simple fix on the TOW today called a tandem warhead and we are going to do that. However, there is a question whether we can get through the future Soviet tanks frontally. If I were going to war, I would field the ground-launched Hellfire. It can be done quickly and relatively cheaply. The problem we have with it is it takes another individual on the ground or airborne to lase for it on the target. It is more complicated. However, we know it will do the job and I feel that if we get in a bind with the threat before we have a follow-on to TOW, this is a system that we should look at very seriously. Mr. CHAPPELL. Would you please provide for the record a description of any planned efforts to develop a ground-launched Hellfire capability, together with a funding profile. [The information follows:] Feasibility of a ground-launched Hellfire has been demonstrated, but the Army has neither an approved program for development nor programmed funding. The Army is however pursuing development of a Hellfire launcher for the UH-60A Black Hawk helicopter, in compliance with direction from Congress. This capability offers advantages over a ground-launched version such as rapid movement about the battlefield, integral communications for command and control, no changes in force structure, terrain obstacles avoidance, etc. Funding appropriated for this program is $15.0 million in FY 84 and $17.0 million in FY 86 for development. Testing is scheduled for completion by the second quarter FY 1987. SENSE AND DESTROY ARMOR PROGRAM (SADARM) Mr. CHAPPELL. The Army is requesting $99.8 million to continue full-scale engineering development of the sense and destroy armor program. The committee has had serious reservations about SADARM in the past, mainly concerning adequate proof of principle, the need for more testing, cost and competition in development and production. Those concerns resulted in the issuance of certain specific directives by the appropriations conference in its fiscal year 1986 report. When will an RFP be issued? General WAGNER. We are having a program review in May, sir, looking at the SADARM. We are looking at two versions of it, a warhead for the MLRS and a warhead for the 155 millimeter round. We would want competition on that. The RFP, the test program and the ROC have all been structured in those two sizes to do that job. Probably the questions that you have on it and most people have had on it is the search pattern on the ground once you dispense it from the system. It does not have the wide area search that some of the other munitions will have. However, we know it can be very effective, for example, against their artillery. It would be a super counter battery system. With some of the systems that we have today for dispensing it, we think it may even be effective against a tank so we are carrying on with that program. Mr. CHAPPELL. When will the RFP be issued? General WAGNER. I will have to provide the specific date. [The information follows:] A competitive RFP is expected to be available in April 1986 for release to industry. Mr. CHAPPELL. Is the date of the RFP dependent on holding an ASARC? Dr. SCULLEY. Yes, sir, and that ASARC is currently scheduled for the third quarter in fiscal year 1986. Mr. CHAPPELL. Since that is true, what consideration has the Army given to issuing the RFP prior to ASARC, and allowing proposal preparation and preparation for ASARC to proceed in parallel? Wouldn't that save time? General WAGNER. Yes, sir. At this time the RFP is to be held up, but we will come back to you on that. [The information follows:] No. The Army intends to release the RFP prior to the formal program review. Mr. CHAPPELL. Give us your plan if you intend to go parallel, because we think it would save a lot of time for you and you agree. Dr. SCULLEY. We do. We expect a four-year full-scale engineering development program after a contract award, so―― Mr. CHAPPELL. You can't then tell us when you plan to award the contract? General WAGNER. We would release the RFP in April and prob Mr. CHAPPELL. The conference directed that the RFP include, concurrent with ED, gun firings of modified advance development hardware. Does it? Dr. SCULLEY. It does include the test of the hardware. It includes the "Chicken Little" results and a design review are being incorporated into the programs. Mr. CHAPPELL. What is the "Chicken Little" result? General WAGNER. That is a test that is going on at Eglin Air Force Base. It has been a classified series of tests where we take foreign weapon systems and shoot at them with various munitions we have. The Israelis have been working with us on that program. We have learned a lot on what we can do particularly with top attack in that arena. Mr. CHAPPELL. Are you able to tell us anything about the results from this Chicken Little test? General WAGNER. The SADARM explosively formed penetrators have been able to penetrate more than we expect the top armor on threat tanks will be, so we believe that it can do the job. Mr. CHAPPELL. The conference report stated that these gun firings are to be well instrumented, by which is meant the extensive use of telemetry. Describe how this requirement for telemetered gun firings is to be met. General WAGNER. The amount of telemetry in the earlier tests probably was not as much as we would desire. We know the height of burst, what the penetration was and that sort of thing, but as we go on with these tests which we hope to do, we will continue to increase telemetry for that testing. We worked this through the Air Force initially. They have been the major proponent for it and we tagged on to it. Mr. CHAPPELL. When will these firings take place? General WAGNER. I can't give you the specific date, sir, but that program does continue this year. Mr. SERAPHIN. General, are you saying that these well instrumented firings of a modified AD hardware are going to be done as part of Chicken Little, or Chicken Little II, or something similar? General WAGNER. We will be firing these tests in other places than just there. I am not sure whether we will shoot some of them in that or not. I would have to check that out. Mr. CHAPPELL. How many firms do your view as being potential competitors for the development? General WAGNER. At least two. Mr. CHAPPELL. How about procurement? General WAGNER. We would hope to keep those two in competiton as we go into procurement. Mr. CHAPPELL. The conference directed the Army to ensure that the program schedule be structured realistically and managed prudently. The point is that progression from one phase to another is to be on the basis of specific technical accomplishment and risk reduction rather than on arbitrary calendar dates. How long a time is now secheduled between contract award and choosing the winning competitor? Dr. SCULLEY. I don't think that has been specifically identified, sir. We will be glad to provide that. |