sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arena (countermeasure), M1 Abrams, Main battle tank, Offensive (military), Tank, Tank gun

The Future Combat System (FCS) A Technology Evolution Review and Feasibility Assessment

by Asher H. Sharoni and Lawrence D. Bacon

This is the first installment of a three- part article on an independent analysis and proposal for a future -like sys- tem. The second part will appear in the September-October issue. - Ed. The Future Combat System (FCS) is the Army’s most recent attempt to be- gin developing a new tank that is to be fielded in the 2010-2015 time frame. To understand its origins, one must ex- amine the prevailing global political situation, and its effect on future de- ployment of the U.S. Army. The post- Cold era has been distinguished by the downsizing of power and ever-diminishing defense budgets for research, development, and acquisition A computer-modeled sketch of the system being discussed. of new systems. Moreover, the counterterrorism program added un- planned budgetary and operational ered a viable option at this time. Con- experts has identified the following fu- pressures, and its immediate funding tinued modernization and upgrades are ture major threats to U.S. Armored led to an additional intensive cut of designed to preserve the Forces: Line of Sight (LOS) Antitank $680 million from research and devel- fleet’s advantageous technological Guided (ATGM) fired from opment programs as a ‘down-to-earth’ edge, operational superiority, and sus- and helicopters; top-attack practical approach to reducing total al- tainability until a new generation tank ATGMs; advanced KE rounds fired location of FY 97 defense spending. is ready to be deployed. from large-caliber tank (120mm Nevertheless, we’ve recently dis- and up); extensively proliferated infan- Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has been try antitank ; top-attack, artil- currently undergoing a transition from cerned a resurgence of interest in a lery-fired, precision-guided antitank a force permanently deployed all over novel tank, postulated by the authors to munitions with shaped charges or Ex- the world into a global, consolidated, be fielded within at least 20 to 30 years plosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) ‘power-projection’ force, primarily sta- into the next century, rather than within 15 to 20 years as commonly perceived warheads; significant advances in for- tioned in the U.S. In view of these eign tank armor (e.g. reactive changes and uncertainties, the concep- feasible. General Dennis J. Reimer, and active protection/defense systems) tion of a novel tank has not been here- U.S. Army Chief of , has recently stated in an interview to Armed Forces and, sophisticated (intelligent) mines. tofore widely advocated. Instead, the These findings lead to the conclusion Army has been focusing its efforts on Journal that by 2010, “The Army After that the 2020-2030 future upgrading programs to improve the M1 Next,” namely Army XXI, will be con- 1 environment’s operational requirements Abrams tank fleet (e.g. M1A2/SEP, figured and equipped with M1A2 could only be met — on equal terms M1A2/P3I, M1A3(?)...). Possible up- Abrams tanks.2 General Reimer also commented that the Army has begun — by the FCS. Consequently, it im- grades may include the high-pressure plies what the FCS’s time frame of de- XM291 120mm tank , with more work with OSD’s Net Assessment ployment may realistically be — be- effective, advanced kinetic energy (KE) to portray what the future - yond Army XXI! and chemical energy (CE) ; field will look like in the 2020-2030 an integrated dynamic defensive ‘suit’ time frame. In a recent Ad-Hoc Study The Future Combat System (FCS) is ( - APS); ar- of Tank Modernization,3 the Army Sci- fundamentally a futuristic conceptual mor augmentation (Explosive Reactive ence Board (ASB) panel, headed by tank or weapon system, characterized Armor - ERA); digital appliqués; im- General Glenn K. Otis (USA, Ret.), by unprecedented operational capabili- proved target acquisition; digital fire concluded that no significant techno- ties.3 It will incorporate state-of-the-art, control system; and a driver night vi- logical breakthroughs are expected leap-ahead technologies, matured and sion enhancement. A new turret incor- prior to the year 2020. This distin- available for implementation 20-30+ porating a 140mm gun is not consid- guished panel of military and civilian years from today. The Senate Armed

ARMOR — July-August 1997 7 Services Committee and the Senate Defense Appropria- tions Subcommittee started the ball rolling when they recently authorized funds ($12 M) for a new program primarily designed to:4 Iden- tify requirements and assess future concepts as to what system or mix of systems will support the best opera- tional weapon system for defeating the ever-evolving threats; develop conceptual approaches for imminent technologies that could be integrated into a future tank (or upgrades to the existing M1 The Future (FMBT) ducted a conceptual tank design contest Abrams fleet); and employ ‘virtual pro- for the next-generation tank — known totyping’ techniques [e.g. studies of The evolution of the FCS should not as the FMBT. The contest drew close computerized 3-D graphics and proc- be disassociated from that of its prede- attention and extensive response from esses for emulation of engineering and cessor, the FMBT. On January 1993, all quarters of the defense community. manufacturing development (EMD)] for the U.S. Armor Association and AR- The winning entry, submitted by West- conceptualizing and subsequently field- MOR magazine, in conjunction with ern Design Howden5 (WDH), presup- ing a revolutionary Future Main Battle the Directorate of Combat Develop- posed 2010-2015 as the time span for Tank (FMBT) within 20 years or so. ments at , Kentucky, con- fielding.

8 ARMOR — July-August 1997 The FMBT was perceived as the suc- ammunition, can be adopted to electro- was not available. Additional insight cessor to the M1 Abrams tank. It capi- thermal chemical (ETC) propulsion, into the FCS concept was subsequently talized on a new and revolutionary tank and is internationally harmonized with provided at the American Defense Pre- design philosophy as a fully integrated, the 140mm gun implementation, re- paredness Association’s Combat Vehi- multipurpose weapon system. Consid- quiring solely a tube and ammunition cles Conference,3 conducted at the U.S. ering lethality as the principal design exchange. It is considered by many as Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, Ken- driver, the design approach commenced the most viable upgrade to the standard tucky, September 24-26, 1996. with the selection of the main arma- M256 gun. The XM291 gun is short- ment, continued with an unmanned, re- term, readily available, and represents a The imaginary FCS is, in our per- motely operated weapon station, and sound economical alternative to serve sonal conviction, a visionary successor concluded with the hull constructed in the next 30 years and beyond, prior to the conceptual FMBT, whereas the around it. Consequently, the weapons to maturation of a new and revolution- latter is the successor to the M1 station was located towards the rear of ary main tank armament system. The Abrams series tank. Our governing as- the hull, the three crew members were FMBT was favorably received by the sumption is that, in actuality, the FCS positioned abreast in a well-protected, armor community because it epito- will be deployed in the 2020-2030 and consolidated compartment low in the mized the prudent utilization and inte- not in the 2010-2015 time frame as center portion of the hull, and the gration of mature, state-of-the-art, and currently presumed feasible.3 Formida- power pack was placed at the . battle-proven technologies currently ble technological breakthroughs are available. mandatory and prerequisite prior to Compartmentalization and placement committing immense funds and scarce of the entire crew in the hull consti- technological resources to the develop- tuted a major enhancement to crew sur- The Future Combat System (FCS) ment, acquisition, and fielding associ- vivability and predominantly contrib- ated with the FCS. These may not be uted to overall weight reduction.6 The On July 8th, 1996, Major General high-pressure 120mm XM291 gun, de- Lon Maggart, then commanding gen- realized, nor sufficiently mature, to warrant their implementation within the veloped by TACOM-ARDEC/Benet eral of the U.S. Army’s Armor Center 2010-2015 time frame, especially under Labs, was the main armament gun sys- at Fort Knox, Kentucky, introduced a continuous adverse budgetary restraints tem of choice. The XM291 possesses novel concept of a “tank” identified as and ever-competing, oftentimes contra- the inherent lethality growth potential, the Future Combat System (FCS). MG affordability, and ability to defeat con- Maggart expressed his explicit view- dictory, operational requirements. temporary and future armor. It is about point regarding the FCS while inter- Nonetheless, the FCS concept has se- the same size and weight as the stand- viewing with the Defense Daily news- cured support of military leaders and ard M256 120mm , yet pos- letter.7 Our present analysis is based in captured $100 M in the Army’s recent sesses a ‘built-in’ growth capability to part on that interview, considering that six-year budgetary plan. For the FCS, utilize higher pressure, future 120mm the Mission Need Statement (MNS) or any other future generation tank, to

ARMOR — July-August 1997 9 come to fruition, it must incorporate ments and leverage technologies avail- Concept for a dual-caliber electromagnetic revolutionary technologies that demon- able for implementation in the 2020- to be cooled by forced air circulation. strate novel, highly-potent weapon sys- 2030+ time frame. FMBT’s underlying tems and substantial reductions or sav- philosophy served as the bedrock for ings in manpower, propulsion energy, our proposed FCS. It bridges the gap in Lethality - FCS Armament Choices consumption of consumables, sustained the evolutionary process between the ad- • maintenance, reliance on logistic support, vanced, yet conventional, M1 Abrams Primary Armament System - Main 8,9,10,11,12,13 Gun Armament Candidates: The fol- and overall combat weight. tank series and the imaginary, futuris- lowing are the potential prime candi- Presumably, it will be one of the last tic, nearly ‘science-fiction’ FCS. When- dates for the FCS’s Main Armament ever applicable, conceptual features System (MAS): manned tanks produced in large num- have been adapted from the FMBT and bers. Most likely thereafter, remotely- further advanced to correspond to their - Conventional solid propellant (SP) operated tanks will be introduced — likely evolutionary status at the time of 120/140mm guns much smaller, unmanned ‘robotic’ Liquid propellant (LP) tanks introduced into the battlefield in implementation. Admittedly, it is a for- - 14,15,18 midable task to accurately forecast - Electro-thermal chemical (ETC) decisive aggregates. technology evolution 20 or 30-plus - Electromagnetic (EM) years into the future. This has become - Antiarmor, antiair guided or ‘fire- Scope of This Article particularly evident in the course of the and-forget’ type tactical missiles. last four decades, when unprecedented We will discuss the predicted evolu- The emergence of the revolutionary technological breakthroughs have be- tion, feasibility, and applica- FCS concept triggered our imagination come customary and more frequent. In bility of these guns and missiles later and persuaded us to conduct a rather view of this, we ask readers for pa- limited technical literature research of tience as we look into our ‘crystal ball’ on. information available in the public do- and occasionally let our imaginations • Secondary (I) Armament System main. The latter resulted in this article, go wild. - High-Energy, Direct-Projection La- after we anguished over the imponder- ser Gun: The FCS will be equipped able complexities associated with such with a high-power, extremely accurate, a revolutionary design, portraying how The FCS - Characteristics and fully-stabilized gun. The FCS is we envision the FCS 20-30 years into Major Capabilities envisioned as an ‘all-electric’ , the future. In consequence, we’ve de- which facilitates a laser gun that could termined to advance our conceptual The FCS will capitalize on the fol- be used against a variety of close-in FMBT one generation further to meet lowing major capabilities and attrib- threats. Among them are helicopters, future battlefield operational require- utes: drones, ground ‘soft’ targets, ,

10 ARMOR — July-August 1997 and — in self-defense mode — against through the atmosphere at tactical op- • Battle Management System incoming enemy missiles. High-power erational ranges (10-15 km) without laser technology for armament applica- detrimental losses from beam spread- The third-generation Battle Manage- tions has successfully advanced beyond ing, divergence, dispersion, diffraction ment System (BMS) includes a periph- eral, multi-sensor-aided target acquisi- its infancy and nowadays is well estab- and scattering. Additionally, it must tion and fire control system. It would lished in outer space and airborne ap- maintain its ‘self-focus’ characteristics plications. The FCS laser gun applica- and high-energy density, which are be a day/night integrated system capa- ble of automatically engaging and tion will probably be a ‘spin-off’ of mandatory for achieving an effective managing up to 15-20 active or passive these developmental efforts. Incon- target kill. Much has yet to be said testably, laser gun technology repre- about laser research and applicability, targets simultaneously and autono- sents a tremendous step towards inde- but, in the interest of time and space, mously. Automatic air/ground acquisi- pendence from logistic support. There this short overview will suffice. tion would be made through thermal imagery, millimeter-wave proc- is no need for frequent ammunition re- • Secondary (II) Armament System essing, and direct optical sights. It supply since it will be ‘firing’ variable, high-energy short pulses (bursts) of - Dual-Role Antiair/Antiarmor Mis- would include target recognition, iden- siles: The FCS will be equipped with tification, prioritization, and automatic converted electrical energy. During tar- dual-role, ‘fire-and-forget’ antiair (40- tracking. Fire controls would incorpo- get acquisition, a low-energy laser + beam will be pointed at the target to 50 km extended range) beyond-line- rate main and secondary armament sta- verify ‘on-target’ position and the cor- of-sight (BLOS), and laser/TV (infra- bilization and support automatic load- responding effective range. Sub- red, passive or active, 3rd generation) ing. The system would offer full fire- guided ‘line-of-sight’ and beyond on-the-move capability while engaging sequently, the low-energy beam will be (B/LOS) antiarmor (10-30+ km range) multiple targets. It would assume an substituted with a short, high-energy pulse, ultimately yielding target de- missiles. Compact third generation mis- active role within the tactical and re- siles, with multiple target capability, gional digitized communication net- struction. air-defense and antitank system works by providing critical battle A case in point is the USAF’s High- (ADATS), robust lethality type mis- awareness information and target data Energy Chemical-Oxygen Airborne La- siles. Though still presumed to incur submission and acceptance. The ser (ABL), currently being developed high cost per unit and inefficient at FCS/BMS could be temporarily very close engagements, there will be ‘slaved’ to other FCSs or to higher- to destroy ballistic missiles early in no substitute for their accuracy and ex- echelon commands. their boost phase of , immediately following their launch phase. A full- tremely high probability of hit and kill • All-Around Vision, Transparent at short and extended tactical ranges. power prototype baseline configuration Their BLOS formidable tactical capa- “Virtual Reality” Under Armor laser module in the hundreds of kilo- watts class has already been demon- bility will remain second to none. An all-around, ‘virtual reality,’ day/ night, 360o array of TV/thermal cam- strated to meet stringent performance In addition to primarily assuming an eras and computer-processed vision requirements. Another notable program role, the FCS will also act as is the U.S.-Israeli Tactical High-Energy an armored mobile air defense (AD) would enable the crew to “see” through Laser (THEL), developed to engage system16 for the combined arms team the armored walls of the crew compart- and destroy incoming missiles. Though (CAT). By acquiring this capability, air ment with integrated displays. This would allow excellent “buttoned- chemical laser technology is considered defense will become fully integrated up” visibility and alleviate motion sick- mature, a compact and transportable into the CAT to allow for its maximum tactical laser weapon system, well inte- effect and deployability. A network of ness. The weapons could be fully slaved to each of the two crew mem- grated into a smaller mobile armored four to six FCSs could prioritize and bers’ as tactical considerations vehicle, remains to be demonstrated. engage a number of aerial and point Typical outstanding issues are integra- targets. This network, being an integral and battle conditions dictate. The dis- tion of , energy pressurization part of the digitized force, could either plays would make accessible all critical system, radar, and command & control. acquire and engage targets on its own, battle awareness, vehicle status, and in- telligence information. Crew members To facilitate its development, the U.S. or convey critical information to other would be able to see the faces of peo- Army is already leveraging technology forces in the greater area. The FCS dis- from the USAF’s space-based laser persed ‘battle groups’ (not large ar- ple they are communicating with and other pertinent pictured information on program. Finally, the U.S. Army’s fixed mored formations anymore) could be their personal displays. laser, based at the High Energy Laser connected to higher-echelon defense Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) White and command centers for automatic re- Integrated Survivability Sands, N.M., and the Los Alamos Na- sponse to saturation and time-com- tional Laboratory (LANL) facility are pressed attacks. This need is reinforced This lightweight (40-45 ton), all-ter- both engaged in laser research for mili- by the reality that the Army is modify- rain, all-weather, extended-operational tary applications. These developments ing its 50-year-old air defense doctrine, capability (EOC), highly mobile ar- and similar projects imply that future taking over responsibility for close air mored vehicle would be significantly more versatile than the present M1 ‘spin-off’ versions, on a much smaller support (CAS). The Army will rely on Abrams tank series and capable of mis- scale, could be implemented in various, its own means, such as deep attack armored ground-to-ground and ground- helicopters (AH-64 Longbow Apache), sions beyond those traditionally per- to- weapons and active advanced systems (Crusader), formed by contemporary main battle self-defense applications. The high- and ultimately the FCS, rather than the tanks (MBT). power, direct line-of-sight (LOS) laser customary U.S. Air Force dedicated The vehicle would present a substan- beam must have the ability to travel close support aircraft. tially reduced overall target signature

ARMOR — July-August 1997 11 (heat, acoustic, magnetic and visual) by and energetic/reactive armor modules Mobility and Agility way of utilization of ‘stealthy’ materi- that could be installed in accordance als and design contours. Equipped with with the primary assigned mission. Unprecedented cross-country mobility an extensive signature management and enhanced agility will be provided Another system would integrate pas- by an all-electric power train producing system (SMS - thermal, electromag- sive/active mine detection, avoidance, a variable 800-1200 Hp (@45 ton max. netic, acoustic), countermeasures, and a False Target Generation (FTG) ac- and possibly destruction (neutraliza- overall weight!). Computerized hydrop- tion) while stationary, or preferably on- neumatic ‘dynamic’ suspension will tive/passive decoy system, which could the-move. provide smooth and comfortable ad- project and emulate an imaginary FCS signature to divert incoming homing Force-Projection Deployability justable ride over all kinds of rough terrain. Maximum cross-country speed missiles away from the real FCS. Reduced weight and a smaller silhou- will be 100 KPH (63 MPH). This is A self-defense, dynamic ‘hit-avoid- ette would improve air, land, and sea extremely high and practically unat- ance suit’ (HAS) would automatically transportability and deployability. tainable with limited performance, con- detect, prioritize, counter, and intercept ventional torsion-bar or coil-spring sus- enemy cruise missiles, helicopters, un- The FCS would play a key role as an pensions. Nonetheless, it is attainable manned , high performance active information node, fully inte- with a hydropneumatic suspension. grated into digitized battlefield, tactical, fixed- ground support aircraft, top- and regional communication networks, Maximum flat-road cruising speed will attack antitank munitions, homing artil- exceed 120 KPH (75 MPH) at maxi- lery munitions like SADARM (Search providing combat, surveillance, and lo- mum power output. and Destroy Armor), and other antitank gistic information. threats. The vehicle would offer improved Sustainability - Reduced Maintenance cross-country mobility, speed, and agil- and Logistics There would be an automatic detec- ity, and a greater range than the M1 se- Powered by a new, high-efficiency tion, alert, avoidance, and protection ries tank. system for areas contaminated by power-pack and energy source, possi- An autonomous system would pro- bly an alternative energy source to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). vide day/night obstacle avoidance, conventional fossil fuels. The en- The vehicle would be equipped with ‘Auto-Pilot’ (AP) navigation/cruise and gine/power source facilitates the imple- advanced, ‘add-on’ modular passive automatic formation maneuver. mentation of electromagnetic or elec-

Evolutionary Silhouette Comparison

12 ARMOR — July-August 1997 trothermal-chemical guns that use elec- ergy for mobility and propulsion, while ice’s Shape Beyond Force XXI,” Armed Forces trical energy (EE) as their means, all or reducing the traditional restricting de- Journal INTERNATIONAL, October 1966, p. in part, for propulsion. pendency on rations, ammunition, and 36. spare parts. This same underlying phi- 16Col. (IDF, Ret.) Dr. Sharoni, A. and Bacon, We envision a significantly reduced L., “Forward Area Air-Ground Defense-Do We reliance on conventional maintenance, losophy has played a paramount role in the derivation of our FCS concept. Need A Dual-Role Hybrid Air-Ground Defense resupply of rations, ammunition, fuel, System for the Armored Forces?,” ARMOR, and spare parts to achieve long-term, We’ll deal with solutions to these July-August 1996, p. 15. extended operational capability. problems in the second part of this 17Caires, G., “Logistics Holds the Key To the three-part article. ‘Army-After-Next’,” Defense Daily, July 23, Compliance of major sub-systems 1996, p. 123. with the above required capabilities Note: All information contained in 18 and attributes will be discussed in the this article was derived from open Evers, S., Briefing, Future Warfare, “Rise of the Robots,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, July 31, following sections. sources and the analysis of the authors. 1996, p. 19. Logistics Are the Key to the FCS Notes Western Design HOWDEN (WDH) is a 1 The M1 Abrams, though inarguably Glasgow, W.; Col. Cardine, C.; and Latson, small defense in Irvine, Cali- one of the most capable and potent D., “The M1A2: Current and Future Program fornia, which specializes in the design, tanks ever produced, must cease opera- Plans,” ARMOR, May-June 1996, p. 11. development and production of ammu- tions for refueling at least once every 8 2Roos, J.G., “Forging A Full-Spectrum Force nition and material handling systems hours under normal operational condi- - Army Chief Shares His Vision of the Future for the U.S. and international military tions. Its ammunition and other critical Force,” Armed Forces Journal INTERNA- markets. WDH’s track record includes consumables could be readily depleted TIONAL, October 1966, p. 30. a variety of air, land and seaborne in a very short time during heavy com- 3Proceedings, 1996 Combat Vehicles Confer- weapon systems which require auto- bat. Like all contemporary modern ence, American Defense Preparedness Associa- mated feed, resupply and optimized tanks, the M1 requires a long and vul- tion (ADPA), September 24-26, 1996, U.S. ammunition packaging. WDH has nerable logistic support “tail” that se- Army Armor Center Fort Knox, Kentucky. been involved among others in the verely delimits its deployability and 4Special Report, “Authorizers Put More Tank Test Bed, AC-130U Gunship, operability. In an era when power pro- Money Into Future Tank,” INSIDE THE PEN- AH-64 Apache and Tank Compact Au- jection is critical, strong logistical de- TAGON, August 8, 1996, p.10. toloader Programs. pendency is not acceptable over the 5Editorial, “We Have a Winner!,” ARMOR, long run. The current goal is to reduce July-August 1993, p. 6. the logistic burden by at least 50%. 6Fletcher, R., “The Crewing and Configura- Unfortunately, armored force maneuver tion of the Future Main Battle Tank,” ARMOR, and the intensity level of its attack are May-June 1995, p. 6. frequently limited by the capabilities of 7Caires G., “Army Wants Lighter, More Ver- Mr. Lawrence D. Bacon is logistic support infrastructures, rather satile Vehicle to Replace M1 Tanks,” Defense the Director of Graphic Arts at than the inherent ability of the tank it- Daily, July 10, 1996, p. 43. WDH where, for the past 18 self. (What’s new?... Wasn’t General 8 Sherman J., “ Tank - U.S. Army years, he has been responsi- Patton short of fuel while rapidly ad- Lays Plans For Its Next Generation of Armored vancing in France? Or for that matter, ,” Armed Forces Journal INTERNA- ble for creating numerous Field Marshal Rommel in North Af- TIONAL, October 1966, p. 46. concepts for automatic am- rica?). 9Grimes, V.P., “Next Generation Tank - munition handling, loading Looming Lethal Leviathans Demand Develop- and storage systems. A modern fast-maneuvering army ment $$$,” National DEFENSE, September must reduce its reliance on restrictive 1996, p. 26. logistic support systems while consum- 10Keating, P.M., “Agile, Elusive Armored Dr. Asher H. Sharoni is the ing fewer limited resources. On July Killer Will Stalk 21st Century ,” National Director of Engineering at 17, 1996, Major General Robert Scales, DEFENSE, September 1996, p. 32. WDH. He holds a Sc.D. in Deputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine at 11 Jenkins, D.H.C., “New Concepts in Ar- Mechanical Engineering from the Army’s Training and Doctrine moured Fighting Vehicles - The Swedish Ap- Command (TRADOC), expressed his MIT and a M.Sc. and B.Sc. in proach,” INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE RE- Mechanical and Industrial En- conception in the Defense Daily news- VIEW 12/1982, p. 1719. 17 gineering from the Technion, letter, that the Army’s operational 12Major Crawford, S.W., RTR, “The Main revolution relies upon effective utiliza- Battle Tank: Future Developments - A British Institute of Technology. tion of better technologies and tech- Perspective,” ARMOR, January-February 1993, Dr. Sharoni is a former colo- niques to support ground forces. The p. 18. nel in the Israeli Defense key issue at hand is to be able to “tem- 13Caires, G., “Army Weighs Future Infantry Forces in which he was in- porarily break from the logistics um- Vehicle’s Capabilities,” Defense Daily, August volved in various major ar- bilical cord...” restoring the rapid ma- 7, 1996, p. 207. mored weapons develop- neuvering of dispersed formations so 14 Dobbs, H.H., “Planning For A Future Tank ments. Dr. Sharoni has accu- essential to full exploitation of armor Must Consider Technology Leaps, Robotic , shock, and mobility. Accord- ‘Crews’,” ARMOR, January-February 1993, p. mulated more than 30 years ing to General Scales, the Army will be 26. of experience in armor design able to create a dominant Force XXI 15Col. Killebrew, R.B., “The Army After and production. by employing alternative sources of en- Next - TRADOC’s Crystal Ball Eyes the Serv-

ARMOR — July-August 1997 13