PART TWO: ARMAMENT

The Future Combat System (FCS):Technology Evolution Review and Feasibility Assessment
by Asher H. Sharoni and Lawrence D. Bacon(This is the second in a series of threearticles exploring a conceptual futurecombat system. -Ed.)
Main Gun Armament Evolution
and Technology Assessment
This article will examine the potential
main and secondary armament systems
for the FCS in view of their forecasted
technologies, their feasibility, and theirpredicted evolution:
Conventional 120/140mm Guns
A major consequence of the diminishedurgency to develop novel guns in thenear foreseeable future is that conventional, Solid Propellant (SP) guns willremain in service for many years tocome, and their lethality will be gradually enhanced. This was the predominantreason behind the selection of the 120mm high-pressure gun for the FMBT.
The typical High Velocity Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot(HV-APFSDS) projectile has been successively improved over the last three
decades with suggested near-future penetration capability of up to 800-900+ mm
of Rolled Homogenized Armor (RHA).
This was primarily achieved by a progressive increase of the geometrical ratio‘Length/Diameter’ (L/D) of relatively
long and slender rod penetrators andcontinuous improvements to their corresponding materials (Tungsten Alloys,
Powder Metallurgy-PM, Depleted Uranium-DU, and Variable Density Penetrators-VDP).
Penetrators with high ‘L/D’ ratios
proved effective against RHA but they
were found considerably less effective
against composite and/or complex armor.
To augment its effectiveness against thelatter, the penetrator rod must have alarger diameter. Without reverting tolower and adverse ratios of ‘L/D’ (approximately 20/1 for 120mm and experimental 140mm and still increasing), it

must ultimately result in an increase ofvolume and mass of the penetrator rod
and therefore, inevitably, in a corresponding undesirable reduction of the effective muzzle velocity. Utilization ofprogressively heavier rod penetrators to
defeat contemporary and ever-improving
armor protection required higher muzzle
energy [presently 18-20 megajoules(MJ)]. Consequently, it led to guns withever-increasing chamber pressures andlikewise, larger gun calibers (90, 105,
120, 140mm, Western preference).
No future U.S. plans have been announced in regards to the 140mm gun,
Advanced Tank Cannon System ATACS, subsequent to the untimely cancellation of the ‘Block III’ Main Battle
Tank Program. Following a MOU previously signed in 1988 with the U.S.,
Giat (France), Rheinmetall (Germany),
and Royal Ordnance (U.K.) are contemplating a joint venture to develop, market, and produce a standardized 140mm
smoothbore/rifled gun and ammunition.
The weapon system is designated byNATO as the Future Tank Main Armament (FTMA) and is claimed to have asignificant increase in armor penetration
over the standard 120mm tank gun.
Notwithstanding the 140mm gun andammunition’s indisputable potential, thelarger gun size will command a bigger
and heavier vehicle. If the requirement
to reduce weight and volume is going toremain firm and strictly enforced, it ismost unlikely that the 140mm gun andheavy ammunition will find their way
into the FCS. Furthermore, because of
the major changes required and the highcost involved in upgunning the M1
Abrams tank from 120 to 140mm (storage, autoloader, and turret/hull reconfiguration), it is highly doubtful whether
the 140mm gun will ever be utilized inany future upgrade to the M1 tank series.
Grounded on the author’s personal work
experience with the ill-fated ‘Block III’
Tank Program, a 140mm main armament
system could only be successfully inte-

ARMOR — September-October 1997

grated into an entirely new tank (turretand hull) that is built around the main
armament system. It will weigh at least
as much as contemporary heavy tanks(70+ tons). The changes would also increase vehicle mechanical complexity
and significantly reduce ammunition
complement. This scenario is entirely
unacceptable under the FCS’s current
prevailing philosophy. But the 140mm
gun could become a valid and urgent
proposition if the U.S. encounters a major threatening rival, similar to the
U.S.S.R. during the cold-war era, within
the next 10-20 years, prior to the deployment of the FCS.
The following improvements are feasible in the short term and make the ‘generic’ 120mm M256 smoothbore gun
and its derivatives (e.g. XM291) viable
propositions for the next three decades
and beyond. Extraction of more energy
from the propellant gases by increasing
the effective length of the gun barrel up
to 55 calibers long is a viable alternative,
but it will not yield dramatic results. For
instance, the 120mm L55 gun developed
by Rheinmetall (Germany) for the Leopard 2 MBT, is 1.30 m longer(!) than its
predecessor, the standard L44 Rh120
120mm smoothbore gun. The L55 gun
will provide a moderate incremental
higher muzzle velocity, resulting in improved armor penetration. Notwithstanding its benefits, it will definitely make it
more difficult for the Leopard to maneuver in heavily built-up areas or crosscountry terrain textured with densely
grown vegetation or other ground obstacles.
The XM291 gun is a spin-off of thedual-caliber approach previously adopted
by the U.S. Army. It was developed by
the Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC)
in collaboration with Watervliet Arsenal,
and is a combination of a common reinforced 120/140mm high-pressure breech/chamber with a light 120mm gun tube.
This newly designed “Lightweight 120mm

29

Tank Main Armament System,” could
yield comparable results to the 140mm
gun at the lower performance range ofthe latter. Another improvement in gun
performance could be obtained by theuse of propellant with greater surface
burning progressivity, which generates
higher pressure gradients to propel projectiles. An additional increase in gun
performance could come from a reduction in the temperature sensitivity of propellants, which will allow the increase ofburning rates at lower temperatures.
Maximum allowable chamber pressure
at normal and high temperatures can beraised by employing higher strength improved steels commonly utilized in construction of gun barrels.
Advanced 120mm KE penetrators, Sensor Fused Weapons (SFW), Smart tankmunitions and Smart Top Attack Weapons1,2 (STAW) will soon be introduced
into the inventory. These munitions haveextended autonomous capabilities suchas independent target acquisition, identification, prioritization, maneuver control,and improved lethality.
One representative candidate is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) M872 ‘X-Rod’ Rocket-Assisted KE (RAKE) long rod penetrator
that defeats targets with kinetic energy
and could achieve a boosted ‘muzzle’
velocity of 2000 m/sec. Another is the
XM943, Smart Target Activated Fire andForget (STAFF) top-attack round, whichkills with a downward firing, non-axis
symmetric, Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP). The STAFF is designed topenetrate the thinner turret roof armorand lightly armored tank top deck. The
guided round’s sensor and explosively
formed penetrating warhead are capableof destroying evasively maneuvering armored targets that attempt to make useof terrain texture and defilade.
The M829E3 is a dramatically improved kinetic energy (KE) round developed to defeat advanced explosive reactive armor. The Advanced KE Cartridge
Program is about developing a roundwith composite sabots, precursor, axial
thruster assembly, and fastcore OXETANE/CL20 propulsion. It will have improved performance over the standard
M829A1/A2 rounds in defeating Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) and penetrating Rolled Homogeneous Armor(RHA), and greater hit probability. Categorically, these types of advanced munitions will further extend the useful life of
the 120mm solid propellant gun.

30

These improvements, impressive as
they are, will probably not lead the way
to the FCS’s main antitank armament
due to large caliber burden, ammunition
vulnerability, and the inherent limited
growth potential of solid propellants(SP). According to basic governing thermodynamic laws, the velocity at which
chemical SP could accelerate a projectile
is controlled by the velocity at which a
gas could physically expand. For allpractical purposes, contemporary 120mm guns may ultimately reach a muzzle
velocity of 1800-2000+ m/sec. Future
140mm guns (if fielded) may reach an
extended muzzle velocity of 2100-2300+
m/sec while their effective ‘kill’ range
will not exceed 6-7 km at best.
With industrial and logistic infrastructures already in place, backed by battlefield-proven technology, conventional
120mm guns will remain the ‘backbone’system in service for the next 20-30
years and beyond. They will progressively continue to receive incremental
improvements until replaced, while allowing sufficient time for a new main
armament weapon system to mature. The
120mm main armament gun system,
though extremely potent in its own right,
will not justify the enormous expenditure
in development, production, and deployment of a new tank. It will serve as thestandard gun of existing M1A1/A2s, andas an indisputable, cost-effective upgrade
for tanks that are equipped with an inferior caliber gun (105mm). Regardless of
how SP guns will ultimately evolve,
both users and the defense research community have concluded that solid propellants are not the most efficient mediumof conveying to a projectile the energy
required to defeat the ever-evolving
threat. Consequently, since the mid-80’s,
there has been a significant increase inWestern R&D interest and research efforts aimed particularly at developing
new technologies which will substitutefor contemporary SP gun systems. Mostof these efforts (ETC, EM, high-power
laser) are descendants of the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) space-oriented weapons program.

Liquid Propellant Guns
Liquid Propellant (LP) gun propulsion
technology is another viable alternative.
Unfortunately, it has recently received
untimely poor publicity when the U.S.
Army finally decided it will not be implemented in the Crusader, the advanced
self-propelled howitzer currently underdevelopment for the U.S. Army. To thebest of our information, the U.S. Armyhas reluctantly given up on this promising technology in Crusader. Ostensibly,
it was compelled to make that decisionbecause of the detrimental impact itwould have on production and deployment schedules if the Army had to wait
until LP technology matures enough towarrant its near-term implementation. LP
technology is the outcome of extensive
R&D efforts performed in several countries ever since the end of WWII.
Though LP is technologically based ona sound engineering foundation, it ispresently known to experience inherent,
pre-maturation, ‘nagging’ problems suchas ignition control, excessive corrosion,
combustion non-repetitiveness, sealing,
exorbitant weight growth, material contamination, and difficulties in handlingof LP. It may be adaptable to naval applications where better controlled environment, available space, larger guns,
handling, storing, and operating LP armament systems seem more plausible.
LP guns require continuous resupply of
propellant working liquid, which does
not conform favorably with stringent requirements for reduced logistics. LP, in
conjunction with 120/140mm tank gunswith regenerative, multi-stage propellant
injection systems, could reach unassisted
muzzle velocities up to 2200/2500 m/sec
respectively at best. (It is about 10-15%
higher than what could ultimately beachieved with conventional SP 120/140mm guns). This only holds true if ailingproblems with “traveling charge” or“stage propellant” will be satisfactorily
resolved to match the injected “charge
front” propagation speed — through theentire injection process — with that ofthe projectile as it advances down thebarrel.
It has already been demonstrated thatby using a 30mm two-stage travelingcharge LP demonstrator gun, velocities
as high as 3100 m/sec and beyond could
be achieved. Trade-offs between projectile velocity and mass will dictate thepreferred caliber for future applications.
If limited vehicle weight and ammunition count are to remain the main drivers, the selected caliber of LP guns isprobably not going to exceed 60-80mm
with maximum muzzle velocities of up
to 2500-2800 m/sec.
LP technology, though once believed tobe the prime alternative to SP, is nowadays viewed as less attractive for groundmobile applications and thus may not

ARMOR — September-October 1997

become the main armament for the FCS.
Nonetheless, all this may dramaticallychange if these technical difficulties
would somehow be satisfactorily resolved. As with the implementation of
any novel technology, LP requires currently nonexistent industrial and military
infrastructures for production, deployment, and logistics.
In spite of its temporarily recent handicap, research and development of Regeneratively Injected LP guns (RILP) for
various ground and naval applications,will most likely continue.3 In all fairness,there is much to be said in favor of LP
technology, despite its disadvantages.
Chiefly these are its inherent growth potential and high level of design flexibility. LP guns possess controlled, variablelethality and permit a relatively larger
stowed load due to improved efficiencyof LP storage and reduced volumetric requirements in comparison to SP combustible solid cases. Other advantages aresafer storage of LP via compartmentalization, improved piezometric efficiency,
and extended barrel life due to a muchcleaner and better controlled combustion
process. Last, but not least, RILP technology represents a rational leverage ofthe substantial investment already madein the LP version of the revolutionary
Crusader. Notwithstanding a myriad oftechnical and logistic problems, given
sufficient time and resources, LP technology could mature to warrant its future
implementation as the principal armament system in heavy armored vehicles
and the FCS in particular.

Electro-Thermal-Chemical Guns
Encouraging results have been obtainedwith Electro-Thermal-Chemical (ETC)
experimental guns. In principle, an ETC
gun utilizes a chemically energetic (reactive) working liquid instead of conventional solid propellant. It requires considerably less electrical energy to achieveadequate projectile propulsion than its
predecessor, the Electro-Thermal experimental (ET) gun. It needs relatively
smaller and lighter auxiliary equipment
to produce and store electricity. Thisequipment could ultimately be reduced
to a suitable size to warrant its installation in an armored vehicle. Energetic
working liquid is naturally prone to be
problematic in operation, handling, storage, and supply, such that its utilization
will pose a potential safety concern anda logistic burden, much similar to LP
guns. As in LP, ETC implementation requires new industrial and military infra-

structures for production, deployment,
and logistics.
Current developments are aimed at a
medium caliber (60-80mm), antitank gun
with a firing rate of 10-15 rounds/min.
At this caliber range, various types ofrounds could be comprised of KE projectiles and CE rounds, as well as future‘smart’ sensor-fuzed munitions. The ultimate objective is aimed at an ETC automatic gun with a muzzle energy of 20+
MJ (corresponding to 2500-3000 m/sec
for medium calibers) which is comparable to that of the conventional, solid propellant 140mm gun. Much like LP guns,
ETC technology allows better control ofthe pressure (propulsion) generated, sothat it is maintained relatively close to its
maximum while the projectile is moving
down the barrel, resulting in more energy conveyed to the projectile.
This is quite contrary to conventional
SP technology, where the pressure
quickly diminishes as the projectile departs from the combustion chamber.
ETC technology is recognized by many
to show promise of “infinite” or multistage variable lethality and improved
propulsion controllability. It also requires
significantly less electrical energy incomparison to Electro-Magnetic (EM)guns that use only electricity for projectile propulsion. Nevertheless, ETC technology, as promising as it may seem, requires further fundamental research beyond the laboratory stage. Much detailed
research and testing has yet to be accomplished in the field and at weapon system level. It must achieve maturation to
warrant its applicability as a stand-alone
solution, or in conjunction with othermature technologies, or with existing
120/140mm guns.
As an additional practical alternative,
ETC technology could be combined withexisting conventional SP 120mm and/or
future 140mm guns and ammunition,
though a new cartridge and modified
gun chamber are required. It represents anear-term upgrade application of alreadyleveraged and proven technology. The
size of the electrical equipment is muchsmaller than that of current EM researchguns and present ETC as a viable upgrade proposition. Research has shownthat specially designed ammunition and
ETC gun technology could be combinedwith existing conventional SP guns tofurther enhance the performance of thelatter up to 30% and beyond. Augmenting the energy of solid propellant is possible by implementing a plasma regen-

ARMOR — September-October 1997

erative injector and combustion control
to the conventional pressure chamber. In
the event that ETC technology will become practical, existing conventional
120mm and future 140mm guns could
be economically converted into ETC/SPguns as one more step in the evolutionof SP guns. There are still various predominating problems to be addressed
and resolved before ETC guns can become a practical proposition in conjunction with conventional solid propulsion.
The combination of controllable, repeatable inner ballistics with a compatible
solid propellant, and the significant increase in performance (e.g. muzzle velocity) in large caliber guns, has yet to
be demonstrated.
Regardless of whether ETC technology
will become a viable proposition, the useof large consumable ammunition in addition to ‘energetic’ liquid propellant is
contradictory to the requirement of reduced dependency on logistics andweight. The combined implementationof SP with ETC, will probably not justify the enormous investment in design,development and deployment associatedwith the fielding of an entirely new tankfleet. Though new and promising technology, it will not change the nature ofarmored warfare.

Electromagnetic Guns
Electromagnetic (EM) railguns or coilguns, also known as Pulsed-Power EM
guns, are expected to launch light projectiles (KE, up to 5 kg) with 30-60mm
in diameter, at unprecedented hypervelocities between 4000-8000 m/sec (30-60
MJ). Contrary to conventional SP guns,
the EM pulse travels at near the speed oflight (@ 186K miles/sec) and thus provides propulsion means inherently immune to natural limits of gas expansion.
At these extremely high velocities, EMguns are unsurpassed, being more efficient than any other type of existinggun.4,5 EM railguns operate on the same
principle as ‘linear’ electric motors. The
barrel consists of two (or more?) highly
conductive rails with the projectile positioned between the latter and enclosed in
the leading bore. As high current is supplied to the rails, a strong magnetic fieldis created by the electric arc across therails which accelerates the projectile
down the barrel. Hypervelocities appear
to improve the effectiveness of kinetic
energy projectiles against some types ofhomogenized armor but may not do soagainst others. It increases with velocity
against explosive reactive armor if the31projectiles are segmented, but will notincrease against a variety of complex
composite armors. The benefit of hypervelocity projectiles is obvious against
RHA, missiles, helicopters, and low flying ground support aircraft, but requires
further development for full adaptation
to antiarmor complex applications. For
instance, in order to achieve muzzle energy of merely 9 MJ at velocities of2500-4000 m/sec, a Compensated Pulsed
Alternator (CPA) system that weighed
20 tons was used as recently as less thana decade ago. Considerable size, low energy density, and a multitude of unresolved technical problems indicate that
EM guns still have a long way to go before they could become practical enoughto be incorporated as the main gun armament in a relatively small, highly mobile
weapon system such as the FCS.
Because of the high secrecy associatedwith outer-space military weapons applications, no recent information has been
published nor released about EM guns
and their applicability. Many in the research community believe that significant technical breakthroughs have beenachieved over the last ten years, but have32

not become public knowledge. In International Defense Review (IDR)4 it wasreported that ARDEC and DARPA, withfunding assistance from the SDI office,embarked upon a two-phase, multi-tasking joint venture, to demonstrate thatboth rail and coil type EM guns could
repetitively fire projectiles at 2500-4000
m/sec with a muzzle energy of 9 MJ
(equivalent to 120mm SP KE round).
Phase I was divided into multiple tasks
culminating with the construction of repetitively firing skid guns. In phase II by
1995, they were supposed to down-selectone of the concepts identified in phase I,
as the basis for a self-contained, vehiclemounted 15 MJ EM gun. The mobile
demonstrator vehicle was supposed to beequipped with an EM gun firing at a rateof 4 rounds in 24 sec.
Two contracts have been awarded. One
to the University of Texas (UOT) under
ARDEC, and the other to Maxwell
Laboratories under the Defense Nuclear
Agency (DNA). In 1989, it was reported
that the Maxwell Single Shot Gun (SSG)
was a simple bolted design, 8 m long,weighed 18 tons and had a 90mm circular bore. The associated capacitor was

rated at 32 MJ. Reportedly, Maxwell
Labs succeeded in accelerating aplasma-armatured projectile weighing
1.1 kg up to 3500 m/sec, corresponding
to a muzzle energy of 7 MJ. As of today,
ME systems have been demonstrated
with 30-35% efficiency, though 50% is
the acknowledged practical maximum.
Under SDIO sponsorship, the Westinghouse Research and Development Center
constructed a 56mm/60 MJ “Thunderbolt” railgun for lethality demonstrations
at high-end hypervelocities. Much detailcould have been reported herein about
recent advancements in ME technology
research if it was not considered classified information. There are still fundamental issues that must be investigated,researched, and developed before EM
guns could become a practical proposition, among them: 1) Material ablation
effects due to extremely high friction
with the atmosphere at hypervelocities
could cause the projectile to burn unevenly, resulting in substantial degradation of its ballistic trajectory accuracy,
velocity attenuation, and subsequent reduction in penetration effectiveness. Materials demonstrating low ablation must

ARMOR — September-October 1997

also possess high mechanical strength(hard to find); 2) Interface repulsive
force between the projectile and the accelerators (rails or coils) must be determined to quantify the critical implications in safety, structural integrity andlaunch reproducibility; 3) Selection of
gun barrel material for overall weight reduction while maintaining adequate resistance to ablation and durability; 4) Accelerations of 106 g’s produce previously
unknown and unique material problems(e.g. vaporization) with critical implications for both lethality and accuracy. [Athypervelocities, materials behave likeliquids, requiring the implementation ofhydrodynamics, gas thermodynamics,
and compressible fluid dynamics to represent the impact interaction between thepenetrator and its target]; and 5) Reduction of electrical equipment size (e.g. capacitors, compulsators, and homopolar
generators) and development of coaxial
inductors and first-generation, Barber repetitive opening switches operating atextremely high-current; 7) Railguns exhibit difficulty with initial acceleration.
To avoid excessive heat and stress associated with the initial projectile launchphase, a method of gas-injected runningstart for initial acceleration (up to practi-

cally 1 km/sec), prior to the projectile
entering the railgun breech, has been developed. This method introduces mechanical complexity and additional undesired logistic burden.
Nevertheless, in spite of immense technical challenges, especially extensive
pulse and power requirements for extremely short periods of time, and virtually nonexistent infrastructure, EM gun
technology is the preferred long-term ultimate choice. Consistent improvements
in super high-efficiency copolymer resinbased capacitors, compulsators (e.g.
UOT developed ‘alternator’ type generating sharp-pulse shapes), homopolar
generators, HPG (e.g. Faraday rotating
disk requiring large inductors for sharppulse shaping), high energy density superconducting inductors, and very highdensity EE storage devices (‘super capacity’-batteries), will yield dramaticallyreduced volume and weight. Sizable
computers that only 30-40 years ago
filled-up enormous volume and weighed
30(+) tons, have been reduced in volume
and weight into today’s personal computers. There is no logical or any known
physical barrier to preclude it from happening also to EM guns if driven by

ARMOR — September-October 1997

high priority operational requirements,
and given sufficient time and adequate
resources. Ten years ago, under project
Mile Run, DNA conducted research to
reduce a 10 ton EM system into an affordable 1.2 ton package with 32-50 MJ
copolymer resin-based capacitor technology, intended to be fitted in a tracked vehicle for ground mobile lethality andfeasibility demonstrations. EM guns
have reduced vulnerability and operate
on electrical energy alone.
Electrical energy is much simpler totransport, handle, store, and control thanany ETC or LP energizing “liquids” that
require special handling and storage, andcould become a paramount hazard concern. The notion of simplified logistics
will further tip the scale in favor of EM
guns. An FCS equipped with main systems operating solely on electrical energy is a tremendously reduced logistic
burden. Even if friction and atmosphericattenuation will limit the antiarmor projectiles to only say, 6000 m/sec, it is stillby far superior to any existing conventional gun. EM gun technology, thoughstill in a premature stage and presumed

Continued on Page 49

33

FCS (Continued from Page 33)
high-risk in development, but with leapahead variable lethality potential throughhypervelocity, is chosen as the preferredmain gun armament system for the FCS.
For demonstration purposes only, our
visionary and conceptual EM gun is constructed of six ‘barrels,’ three are of
25mm, and the other three of 35mm (inner diameter) for two kinds of ammunition. Each ‘barrel’ is comprised of fiveequally spaced accelerating rails which
also act as cooling fins to enhance heatdissipation. Only one barrel is firing at atime, and only one type of ammunition(25 or 35mm) is being fired in every
burst. The multi-barrel assembly is enclosed in a stealthy rail support structure
through which ambient air is forced forcooling. The anticipated controlled variable rate of fire is from 1 to 60 projectiles/min, depending on battle conditions
and availability of targets, while optimizing and conserving energy. Obviously, it
is highly dependent upon the rate ofelectrical consumption for firing projectiles and the cooling requirements of thebarrels. There are two magazines (700/25mm and 400/35mm, caseless projectiles only) on each side of the gun andeach separately stores one type of ammunition. Ammunition is fed directlyfrom the magazines to the dual feed EM
gun via mechanical ‘twisters’ that reorient the projectiles from their original
outboard position in the magazine toalign them with the firing direction.
There is no need for any manual loadingor an autoloader since the ammunition isfed directly from the magazines to theguns.
Granted, much research has yet to be
performed to overcome the present limitations of EM guns before they reach astate of maturity. The EM gun will firerounds at unequaled velocities, which
will directly contribute to lethality. With-out propellant case, EM rounds are muchsmaller, requiring less storage space, andtherefore could be carried in greater
quantities for extended firing operations.
Because plasma containment and energy
conversion efficiency tend to improvewith bore diameter, it is possible thatsingle, larger barrels with 90mm diameter will be used. The latter represents amajor disadvantage in that the larger the
diameter — the lower the ammunition
complement, the heavier the gun, andthe more difficult it is to reach higher
velocities.
An interesting and promising ‘spin-off’of EM technology is EM Armor.5 It is
still highly classified and in its infancy,
but some initial reports indicate that steel
plates that get ‘energized’ upon impact
could form a unidirectional strong magnetic field that is capable of deflecting
and attenuating shape-charged warheads(increasing survivability up to a factor of
10). If this is feasible, there is anothermajor application for electrical energy
available on board the FCS to assist in
its protection against anti-armor threats.
Note: All information contained in thisarticle was derived from open-sources
and the analysis of the authors.
Notes
1

Major Held, B. J., “Tomorrow’s Smart Tank
Munitions,” ARMOR, March-April 1995, p. 21.
2
Lt. Colonel (Ret.) Boschma, J.H., “Smart Top
Attack Weapons,” ARMOR, September-October
1996, p. 8.
3

Defense Daily, 20 November 1996, p. 285.

4Pengelley, R., “A New Era In Tank Main Armament - The Options Multiply,” INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW, 11/1989, p. 1521.
5
Metzgar, T. L., “From Dreamworld To Realworld: Electromagnetic Guns,” November/December A&DS/ 19, p. 41.

Mr. Lawrence D. Bacon is the
Director of Graphic Arts at WDH
where, for the past 18 years, hehas been responsible for creating
numerous concepts for automaticammunition handling, loading andstorage systems.
Dr. Asher H. Sharoni is the Director of Engineering at WDH. He
holds a Sc.D. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT and a M.Sc. &B.Sc. in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering from the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology. Dr. Sharoni is a former colonel in the Israeli Defense Forcesin which he was involved in various major armored weapons developments. Dr. Sharoni has accumulated more than 30 years ofexperience in armor design andproduction.

6
Editorial, “We Have a Winner!,” ARMOR,
July-August 1993, p. 6.

Western Design HOWDEN (WDH) isa small defense company in Irvine, California, which specializes in the design,development and production of ammunition and material handling systems for
the U.S. and international military markets. WDH’s track record includes a variety of air, land, and seaborne weapon
systems which require automated feed,
resupply, and optimized ammunition
packaging. WDH has been involved
among others in the Tank Test Bed, AC130 U Gunship, AH-64 Apache, andTank Compact Autoloader Programs.