Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division

The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated in 1996.

Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.

The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along an "operational needs statement" to Army Forces Command that spells out the division's need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army, Feb. 16, p1). The Army's operations and plans office, or "G-3," has been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.

TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval documents.

According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents that the transfer in "no way should be construed as support for an AGS program." Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a move to revive the terminated program.

"To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another," Hayes told ITA in a March 12 statement. "I simply believe that, if these existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized while we await the future technologies that are already in production.

"My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our soldiers in the field the fastest?" he added. "If our soldiers can utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania."

Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one year of support for AGS.

The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable. Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.

Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP's ground systems division in York, said the systems are ready to go.

"We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent condition and we're ready to provide support if asked to do so," Muktarian said.

Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training plans, "with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations as soon as possible."

The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division's 17th Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault teams "mobility, firepower and shock effects" within the "drop zone," he added.

AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.

The division's requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was retired.

When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as the Sheridan's replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service's outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.

Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the Marine Corps' Light Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).

That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting Hayes' attention.

"Let's find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a short-term solution for an immediate operational need," Hayes told ITA last week.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

M8 Armored Gun System

The FMC XM8 was designed to combine a tank's firepower with a highly mobile, air-droppable vehicle. AGS was intended to be the Army's new combat vehicle, but in the form of a highly deployable, light-weight vehicle, with high fire-power and reconfigurable armor protection. The AGS was intended to replace the M551A1 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne Division, and was expected to replace TOW-equipped HMMWVs in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). A total of 237 systems were planned for procurement. The cancellation of the M8 Armored Gun System left the US Army airborne forces dangerously low on firepower.
The M8 is the result of the Armored Gun System (AGS) concept that originated in the early 1980s to provide light forces with more powerful direct support. In 1980 the Army's 9th Infantry Division was selected as the test unit for the new High Technology Light Division (HTLD). The HTLD was designed to fight in the deserts of Southwest Asia. Critical pieces of equipment needed to realize the division concept were never available. The Army was only able to field prototypes of some key pieces of the high technology equipment. In other cases, such as the Armored Gun System (AGS), it could not even field prototypes. The AGS was never successfully developed. The substitutes did not provide the capabilities envisioned by the original concepts. These failures hamstrung the division's development.
The M8 resembles a conventional tank, but only requires a crew of three through the use of an autoloader. Its main armament is a 105mm Rheinmetall XM35 tank gun. The M-35 cannon is a low-recoil gun that allows the use of previously developed 105mm ammunition. The autoloader holds 21 projectiles with nine more stowed forward near the driver. Fire control is provided by a digital fire control system with microprocessors and a databus similar to that on the M1A2. The gunner's primary sight is a day/night thermal sight and integrated laser range-finder in a stabilized mount.
Its unique features include an autoloader for the main gun, a three-man crew. and the use of modular appliqu頠bolt-on armor that is not used in a load-bearing application. The armored gun system used titanium appliqu頡rmor. The M8 can be fitted with three levels of protection:

Level I against splinters
Level II against armor piercing small arms and small cannon fire
Level III against cannon up to 30mm
In its base armor configuration, it can be low-velocity airdropped from a C-130 aircraft. The AGS was the Army's only armored vehicle specifically designed for delivery by air. As such, it is considerably lighter than traditional main battle tanks and, though well armed, it is not intended to fight other tanks alone. The AGS is capable of Low Velocity Air Drop (LVAD Parachute) or more conventional roll-on/roll-off delivery by airlift aircraft. A C-130 can carry one AGS, while the larger C-141, C-17, and C-5A can carry two, three, and five AGSs respectively.
The XM8 began development as the Close Combat Vehicle Light (CCVL) in 1983. After almost a decade of test and development the contract was awarded to FMC Corporation. The crew is protected by an aluminum hull with steel armor modules and power is provided by a Detroit Diesel 6V-921A 550 hp turbo-charged V-6 diesel engine and a General Electric HMPT-500-3EC hydro-mechanical transmission. Additional armament consists of a 7.62 coaxially-mounted machine gun and a .50 caliber M2 antiaircraft machine gun.
In 1980 the Army established a need for a Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS) to support its light divisions. Although an organizational and operational plan was developed, further actions on the MPGS program were deferred in 1982. A ROC document for the AGS was approved by the Army in 1985, but the AGS could not be sufficiently funded and was terminated in 1987. In 1989 the Commander, XVIII Airborne Corps, stated the need to replace the M551A1 Sheridan, and he endorsed the 1985 AGS ROC as needing only minor revisions to meet his requirements.
The revised AGS ROC was approved by the Army in September 1990, followed shortly thereafter by the DAB approval of its acquisition as a non-developmental item. After a market survey indicated that nothing "off the shelf" would satisfy the ROC, the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) in May 1992 approved a program, beginning with EMD, to develop and produce the AGS. FMC, now part of United Defense Limited Partnership (UDLP), was the winning contractor. A program restructuring in FY94 to reduce program concurrence also decreased the number of LRIP systems and slipped first unit equipped (FUE) by about 2 years.
In 1993 survivability test assessments were initiated the Armored Gun System. Early live fire tests for this program either demonstrated that the initial AGS design meets its requirements or provided data to support design fixes. One design feature that resulted in a 'surprise' outcome was the ammunition compartment feature that failed to contain the reaction of the ammunition when struck by realistic threat weapons.
The AGS is not a tank -- it may look like a tank, but it's not a tank. It's a thin-skinned vehicle with a gun on it. The vehicle was designed to support the infantry from a position where it can fire and be behind dirt with an elevated gun and to fight in areas where its not going to run into tanks. It has more than one role, and it just doesn't kill tanks. It kills other kinds of targets. It has to be able to bust bunkers, shoot into bunkers, go into urban areas and shoot into windows, and have a round that will spray shrapnel -- that will "take out" people who are firing hand-held weapons or machine guns. US forces using enhanced direct-fire weapons such as the Armored Gun System would fare better than forces equipped with current firepower.
In the fiscal 1996 budget the Armored Gun System was slated to enter production. The Army's Armored Gun System was terminated in 1996, and the FY 97 budget abandoned the Armored Gun System program. When the Army submitted its proposed fiscal 1997 budge, Defense Secretary William Perry instructed the service to plan for an additional cut of 20,000 troops to pay for weapons modernization. Rather than accept a cut from 495,000 to 475,000 troops, Army leaders argued they could obtain the necessary modernization funds through acquisition reforms and operating efficiencies. The fiscal 1997 Defense budget request contained no further Army troop cuts, but the Army cut the AGS program in an attempt to save money for other modernization efforts. The decision was made by the Army as part of an assessment of the warfighting value of the armored gun system compared with alternatives and how they could do it spending less funds. The total program cost, including development, was estimated to be $1.3 billion. The Army had planned to procure 26 low-rate initial production vehicles with 1996 funding of $142.8 million. Termination liability was funded from research and development appropriations because the program was under an engineering and manufacturing development contract. The Armored Gun System is an example of a program in which manpower and personnel integration [MANPRINT] considerations were purposely rejected. It is not a coincidence that the Army canceled the program.
The AGS chassis was also intended to serve as the platform for the hypervelocity line-of-sight antitank (LOSAT) missile system, and building the chassis for the LOSAT alone would be rather expensive.

Specifications
Weight	19.25 tons - Level 1 22.25 tons - Level 2 24.75 tons - Level 3
Length	210 inches - Hull 331 inches - overall
Width	106 inches
Height	100 inches
Speed - Maximum	45 mph
Speed - Cross Country	30 mph
Engine	550 hp diesel
Fuel	diesel or JP8
Fuel Capacity	150 gal
Cruising Range	300 miles @ 2 mpg
Fording Depth	40 in
Main Gun	M35 105mm cannon [30 rounds]
Coaxial machinegun	7.62mm [4500 rounds]
Commander's machinegun	5.58 mm [210 rounds]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

M8 Armored Gun System

Specifications