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 tank-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 War era has been distinguished by
the downsizing of military power and
ever-diminishing defense budgets for
research, development, and acquisition A computer-modeled sketch of the system being discussed.
of new weapon 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 M1 Abrams Forces: Line of Sight (LOS) Antitank
$680 million from research and devel- fleet’s advantageous technological Guided Missiles (ATGM) fired from
opment programs as a ‘down-to-earth’ edge, operational superiority, and sus- tanks 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 guns (120mm
Nevertheless, we’ve recently dis- and up); extensively proliferated infan-
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has been try antitank weapons; 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 warheads; significant advances in for-
tioned in the U.S. In view of these 15 to 20 years as commonly perceived
feasible. General Dennis J. Reimer, eign tank armor (e.g. explosive reactive
changes and uncertainties, the concep- and active protection/defense systems)
tion of a novel tank has not been here- U.S. Army Chief of Staff, has recently and, sophisticated (intelligent) mines.
tofore widely advocated. Instead, the stated in an interview to Armed Forces
Journal that by 2010, “The Army After These findings lead to the conclusion
Army has been focusing its efforts on that the 2020-2030 future battlefield
upgrading programs to improve the M1 Next,” namely Army XXI, will be con- environment’s operational requirements
Abrams tank fleet1 (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 — by the FCS. Consequently, it im-
grades may include the high-pressure commented that the Army has begun
work with OSD’s Net Assessment plies what the FCS’s time frame of de-
XM291 120mm tank gun, with more ployment may realistically be — be-
effective, advanced kinetic energy (KE) Group to portray what the future battle- yond Army XXI!
and chemical energy (CE) ammunition; 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
(Active Protection System - 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 Main Battle Tank (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 Fort Knox, 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 front. battle-proven technologies currently ble technological breakthroughs are
Compartmentalization and placement available. mandatory and prerequisite prior to
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)
vivability and predominantly contrib- ment, acquisition, and fielding associ-
ated with the FCS. These may not be
uted to overall weight reduction.6 The On July 8th, 1996, Major General realized, nor sufficiently mature, to
high-pressure 120mm XM291 gun, de- Lon Maggart, then commanding gen-
veloped by TACOM-ARDEC/Benet eral of the U.S. Army’s Armor Center warrant their implementation within the
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 dictory, operational requirements.
affordability, and ability to defeat con- Maggart expressed his explicit view-
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 tank gun, 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- railgun 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
Gun Armament Candidates: The fol-
and overall combat weight.8,9,10,11,12,13 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-
operated tanks will be introduced —
further advanced to correspond to their - Conventional solid propellant (SP)
much smaller, unmanned ‘robotic’ likely evolutionary status at the time of 120/140mm smoothbore guns
tanks introduced into the battlefield in implementation. Admittedly, it is a for- - Liquid propellant (LP)
decisive aggregates.14,15,18
midable task to accurately forecast - Electro-thermal chemical (ETC)
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, technical 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- on.
limited technical literature research of tience as we look into our ‘crystal ball’
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 laser gun. The FCS is
we envision the FCS 20-30 years into Major Capabilities envisioned as an ‘all-electric’ vehicle,
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, infantry,

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-
its infancy and nowadays is well estab- and scattering. Additionally, it must eral, multi-sensor-aided target acquisi-
tion and fire control system. It would
lished in outer space and airborne ap- maintain its ‘self-focus’ characteristics be a day/night integrated system capa-
plications. The FCS laser gun applica- and high-energy density, which are
tion will probably be a ‘spin-off’ of mandatory for achieving an effective ble of automatically engaging and
managing up to 15-20 active or passive
these developmental efforts. Incon- target kill. Much has yet to be said targets simultaneously and autono-
testably, laser gun technology repre- about laser research and applicability,
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
is no need for frequent ammunition re- imagery, millimeter-wave radar proc-
supply since it will be ‘firing’ variable, • Secondary (II) Armament System essing, and direct optical sights. It
high-energy short pulses (bursts) of - Dual-Role Antiair/Antiarmor Mis- would include target recognition, iden-
converted electrical energy. During tar- siles: The FCS will be equipped with tification, prioritization, and automatic
dual-role, ‘fire-and-forget’ antiair (40- tracking. Fire controls would incorpo-
get acquisition, a low-energy laser 50+ km extended range) beyond-line- rate main and secondary armament sta-
beam will be pointed at the target to
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-
sequently, the low-energy beam will be guided ‘line-of-sight’ and beyond on-the-move capability while engaging
(B/LOS) antiarmor (10-30+ km range) multiple targets. It would assume an
substituted with a short, high-energy missiles. Compact third generation mis- active role within the tactical and re-
pulse, ultimately yielding target de-
struction. siles, with multiple target capability, gional digitized communication net-
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
to destroy ballistic missiles early in very close engagements, there will be ‘slaved’ to other FCSs or to higher-
no substitute for their accuracy and ex- echelon commands.
their boost phase of flight, immediately tremely high probability of hit and kill
following their launch phase. A full-
at short and extended tactical ranges. • All-Around Vision, Transparent
power prototype baseline configuration Their BLOS formidable tactical capa- “Virtual Reality” Under Armor
laser module in the hundreds of kilo- bility will remain second to none. An all-around, ‘virtual reality,’ day/
watts class has already been demon-
strated to meet stringent performance In addition to primarily assuming an night, 360o array of TV/thermal cam-
requirements. Another notable program eras and computer-processed vision
offensive role, the FCS will also act as would enable the crew to “see” through
is the U.S.-Israeli Tactical High-Energy an armored mobile air defense (AD)
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 helmet integrated displays.
chemical laser technology is considered defense will become fully integrated This would allow excellent “buttoned-
up” visibility and alleviate motion sick-
mature, a compact and transportable into the CAT to allow for its maximum ness. The weapons could be fully
tactical laser weapon system, well inte- effect and deployability. A network of
grated into a smaller mobile armored four to six FCSs could prioritize and slaved to each of the two crew mem-
vehicle, remains to be demonstrated. bers’ helmets as tactical considerations
engage a number of aerial and point and battle conditions dictate. The dis-
Typical outstanding issues are integra- targets. This network, being an integral
tion of optics, 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-
To facilitate its development, the U.S. or convey critical information to other telligence information. Crew members
would be able to see the faces of peo-
Army is already leveraging technology forces in the greater area. The FCS dis- ple they are communicating with and
from the USAF’s space-based laser persed ‘battle groups’ (not large ar-
program. Finally, the U.S. Army’s fixed mored formations anymore) could be other pertinent pictured information on
laser, based at the High Energy Laser their personal displays.
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- This lightweight (40-45 ton), all-ter-
tional Laboratory (LANL) facility are pressed attacks. This need is reinforced
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
‘spin-off’ versions, on a much smaller support (CAS). The Army will rely on more versatile than the present M1
scale, could be implemented in various, Abrams tank series and capable of mis-
its own means, such as deep attack sions beyond those traditionally per-
armored ground-to-ground and ground- helicopters (AH-64 Longbow Apache),
to-air offensive weapons and active advanced artillery 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
system (SMS - thermal, electromag- Another system would integrate pas- by an all-electric power train producing
sive/active mine detection, avoidance, a variable 800-1200 Hp (@45 ton max.
netic, acoustic), countermeasures, and a and possibly destruction (neutraliza- overall weight!). Computerized hydrop-
False Target Generation (FTG) ac-
tive/passive decoy system, which could tion) while stationary, or preferably on- neumatic ‘dynamic’ suspension will
the-move. provide smooth and comfortable ad-
project and emulate an imaginary FCS justable ride over all kinds of rough
signature to divert incoming homing Force-Projection Deployability
missiles away from the real FCS. terrain. Maximum cross-country speed
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 vehicles, high performance active information node, fully inte- with a hydropneumatic suspension.
fixed-wing ground support aircraft, top- grated into digitized battlefield, tactical, Maximum flat-road cruising speed will
and regional communication networks,
attack antitank munitions, homing artil- providing combat, surveillance, and lo- exceed 120 KPH (75 MPH) at maxi-
lery munitions like SADARM (Search 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 projectile propulsion. pendency on rations, ammunition, and 36.
16
spare parts. This same underlying phi- Col. (IDF, Ret.) Dr. Sharoni, A. and Bacon,
We envision a significantly reduced losophy has played a paramount role in L., “Forward Area Air-Ground Defense-Do We
reliance on conventional maintenance, Need A Dual-Role Hybrid Air-Ground Defense
resupply of rations, ammunition, fuel, the derivation of our FCS concept.
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 17
Caires, G., “Logistics Holds the Key To the
Compliance of major sub-systems three-part article. ‘Army-After-Next’,” Defense Daily, July 23,
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
The M1 Abrams, though inarguably 1
Glasgow, W.; Col. Cardine, C.; and Latson, small defense company 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 2
Roos, 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- 3
Proceedings, 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
4
verely delimits its deployability and Special 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.
5
pendency is not acceptable over the Editorial, “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%. 6
Fletcher, 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 7
Caires 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., “21st Century Tank - U.S. Army
Patton short of fuel while rapidly ad- Lays Plans For Its Next Generation of Armored
years, he has been responsi-
vancing in France? Or for that matter, Warriors,” Armed Forces Journal INTERNA- ble for creating numerous
Field Marshal Rommel in North Af- TIONAL, October 1966, p. 46. concepts for automatic am-
rica?). 9
Grimes, V.P., “Next Generation Tank - munition handling, loading
A modern fast-maneuvering army
Looming Lethal Leviathans Demand Develop- and storage systems.
ment $$$,” National DEFENSE, September
must reduce its reliance on restrictive 1996, p. 26.
logistic support systems while consum- 10
Keating, P.M., “Agile, Elusive Armored Dr. Asher H. Sharoni is the
ing fewer limited resources. On July Killer Will Stalk 21st Century Arena,” 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-
conception in the Defense Daily news- VIEW 12/1982, p. 1719.
Mechanical and Industrial En-
letter,17 that the Army’s operational 12 gineering from the Technion,
Major Crawford, S.W., RTR, “The Main
revolution relies upon effective utiliza- Battle Tank: Future Developments - A British Israel 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- 13
Caires, 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
essential to full exploitation of armor ments. Dr. Sharoni has accu-
Must Consider Technology Leaps, Robotic
firepower, 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 15
Col. 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