Son of the Sergeant York

By John S. DeMott

By the time it was canceled last year, the Army's proposed Sergeant York division air-defense (DIVAD) gun had become a symbol of a procurement process gone haywire. After the Pentagon spent $1.8 billion and ten years developing the tank-mounted, radar-guided gun, field tests showed that it had trouble hitting a hovering helicopter. The fiasco left the Army without a weapon to counter the Soviets' high-performance aircraft and growing fleet of nimble helicopters. Some reformers urged the Army to consider simpler and more reliable weapons, perhaps a version of the existing Rapier or the Roland missile systems. But the Army decided otherwise. Enter FAAD (for forward-area air-defense system).

In a pitch last week to a Pentagon review board, Army officials got preliminary approval for a system far more elaborate than the Sergeant York. Although the Army says it could build the FAAD system for $9.3 billion, critics argue that it would cost two or three times as much. The proposed FAAD is nothing less than an entire package of weapons to deal with enemy air power in the forward area of a land battle. "In place of a weapon," explains Army Lieut. Colonel Craig Mac Nab, "we're proposing a system."

FAAD would use heavy missiles on an armored chassis in conjunction with lighter missiles carried by trucks. In building the Sergeant York, the Army had trouble deciding whether to arm it with missiles or guns. This time it chose both. FAAD would also include 50-cal. guns on M1 tanks and 25-mm cannons on Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. In theory, the elements would work together through a system of airborne and ground-based sensing devices.

One promising component of the system, which the Army originally balked at including, is the so-called FOG-M (for fiber-optic guided missile), a groundlaunched missile with a television camera in the nose. Steered toward its target by an operator who sees through a gossamer fiber-optic thread that spins out from behind as the missile flies, the weapon's 6-lb. warhead spells almost certain destruction to an enemy tank.

According to Army Under Secretary James Ambrose, the Sergeant York illustrated the point that "no single weapon could do the job alone." What concerns critics, however, is the complexity of the systems approach, which the Army is so proud of. Predicts an engineer with a major defense contractor: "FAAD is going to make the Sergeant York fiasco look like a Sunday picnic."

The Army, which has the worst procurement bureaucracy of all the services, still seems to design weapons by committee, with every bell and whistle thrown into the conglomeration. Says Defense Consultant Steven Canby: "The Army simply doesn't have the people who know something about technology. They put some infantry officer in charge of this program, when they need a technology expert."

There is no doubt that the Army needs a new battlefield air-defense system. The problem with FAAD, however, is that it could collapse under its own weight, leaving this critical need unmet. Army officials conceded to a House subcommittee early this year that the final price tag could be as high as $22 billion. Warns Oregon Republican Congressman Denny Smith: "The Army is going into a $20 billion swamp. The chances are good that it can spend billions and lose another decade, and still not have an effective air-defense weapon."

With reporting by Bruce van Voorst/Washington