Date: 1983-05-02
Speaker: TED SIFF (republican)
Chamber: S

President. California Magazine. Los Angeles. Calif. DEAR MR. SIFF: I welcome your invitation to respond to the article on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle contained in the February 1983 edition of California magazine. I trust you will give your readers the opportunity to read my response. This article does a serious injustice to the American taxpayer. The author shows little regard for facts. He has chosen instead to weave a most incredible mosaic of innuendo. for the Fighting Vehicle and Its design bonsuggestion and outright errors in construct- cepts was conducted and each point of conIng an article to achieve a preconceived pur. gressional concern was explored In detail. pose. He shows little inclination to under. We have reviewed this program in excrucistand the need for. or ther capabilities of ating detail each year since then and the the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Let me cite Bradley vehicle now being produced reprejust a few examples to demonstrate my sents the best collective judgmentof both point. the Congress and the Administration of A. The Bradley is not primarily a troop what we should be producing. We wiU concarrier. It is a fighting vehicle designed to tinue to refine and Improve this vehicle In fight and survive on tomorrows battlefield. the future to take advantage of technologi. In making comparisons with the M113 per- cal advances in materials and components. sonnel carrier. the author demonstrates his The above are but a few examples of the fundamental lack of understanding of mili- most flagrant errors contained In the artitary systqms. B. The article charges that* the Bradley ce.oifte aurnhadchosn to engaeli Fighting Vehicle does not work and is rsosbejunls n oacrtl FighingVehcledoesnotwor an isreport all the facts. he would have dlscovplagued with mechanical problems. Seven ered that this new vehicle was carefully deproduction models of the Bradley are under- signed to meet specific requirements and to going testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Maryland. and have completed nearly 25.000 test milei of 80% of the total planned It Is unfortunate that articles such as the test. The vehicle is exceeding reliability re- one published In your magazine have a tendquirements in all major categories. The re- ency to take on a life of the their own. quired standard is 240 miles between fail- whether or not they have any basis In fact. ures and to date. the Bradley is testing out Your magazine has contributed to the misat 386 miles between failures. In other leading information that Is all too often acwords. the vehicle is exceeding its required cepted by the public as fact simply because standards by over 50%. It is published or broadcast on electronic C. The author also portrays the Bradley media In the United States. as a vehicle that will risk the lives of sol- The primary task that we In public office diers. He alleges. "aluminum armor will must pursue Is to protect thenational secuhelp kill the soldiers it is supposed to pro- rity of our nation. If we are adequately pretect." This is erroneous. The armor system pared to defend our national Interests. war of the Bradley is the spaced laminate type. may never come. If we are not adequately It is comprised of two layers of high hard- prevaredif we do not have systems that ness steel separated by one inch and mount- can fight and survive on the battlefieldwe ed approximately three inches outside the increase the likelihood that we will be sendaluminum hull structure. which itself is one Ing our y6ung men and women into battle inch thick aluminum armor plate. The with their hands tied behind them. We will Bradley armor system is designed to with- reieat the lessons of the past where We -stand approximately 90% of the weapons traded American lives for timetime to prolikely to be encountered in battle. However. duce the weapons systems that we needed. I there are some rounds.in the enemis inven- do not want to send my children or my toryincluding some High Energy Antitank grandchildren to fight a dedicated. sophistirounds (HEAT)-that can penetrate the cated enemy with less than the best that we Bradleys armor. but the nature of the can afford to produce. spaced laminate system (dissimilar materi. Sincerely. als separated by specific distances) signifi- JOHN Towza. cantly reduces the casualty producing eVd fects of HEAT weapons compared to the DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. single layer construction of the M113. OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY. We will never be able to design armor that Washington. D.C. cannot be penetrated. In light of this reali- Hon JOHN C. TOWER. ty. the challenge is to select and to provide Chairman. Committee on Armed Services. an optimum level of armor protection which Senate. Washington DC makes an appropriate contribution to the achievement of survivability. The Bradley ing Vhc CAM un e taiey FebFighting Vehicle is designed to do that. Let me give you a specific example. The ruary In the California magazine and more RPG 7 is a relatively small caliber. shaped- recently in the 7 March 1983 Issue of Time. charge weapon which. although able to pen- Since the press may again touch upon some etrate most of the armor arrays on current of the Issues in these articles. I believe you armored vehicles including tanks. is not should be aware of the Armys thoughts on large enough to generate the catastrophic these subjects. effects described by the author. Shaped I *have enclosed my personal views on charges of this approximate size have been some of the key issues raised in the Califorfired at the Bradley Fighting Vehicle during nia article and enclosed a staff paper which field tests. The test results have shown that addresses the remaining Issues. the additional casualty producing effect of Hopefully. this information on the Brad. aluminum as compared to steel armor is vir- ley will be helpful to you In understanding tually nonexistent. If the Bradley is struck the Armys position on these critical Issues. by a very large. shapedcharge warhead. Sincerely. such as a wireguided Soviet Sagger missile. JAMES R. AMBROSE. all vehicle personnel would probably Under Secretary ofthe Army. become casualties. regardless of any vaporif- Enclosures. ic effects. This would happen in any armored vehicle. including main battle tanks. BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE The fact is. pound for -pound. the Bradleys .combination steel and aluminum armor The article "13 Billion Dud" seems to system provides the best allaround ballistic have these points which deserve serious protection possible for a fighting vehicle. comment: D. The author claims that in Fiscal Year (1). The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) 1978 the Army shrugged off the complaints is not suitable nor survivable for Infantry of the Senate Armed Services Committee- use on todays battlefield (Illogically. it also the Committee which I now chair. After the argues that the M113 or AIFV. which are Fiscal Year 1978 hearings. another intenisive less survivable. should be used because they reevaluation of the specific requirements are cheaper). May . 1983 (2). The Soviets and other countries are doubtful about the "future" of the infantry fighting vehicle. (3). BFV Is more expensive than it need be. and Its cost is a result of massive overrun. (4). The BFV is "too tall". "too fat". and "too small." (5). The use of aluminum in the BFV is unsuitable because it "burns" or "explodes" and creates extra overpressure. intense light. and nitrogen oxide when struck by highexplosive antitank weapons. (6). The Army and FMC (a) "have conducted ... tests. that show .. . the murderous. explosion amplifying effects of alumib num armor" and (b) "... theyve continued not to find it out. Theyve tested the Bradley armor against machineguns . .. but they will not fire a shapedcharge into it The pertinent facts which describe BMP. M113. AIFM. and BFV are set forth in an at. tached table and fact sheet. Reference should be made to it for specific vehicle details. Survivability and Tactics: The ideal battle. field fighting vehicle would be survivable against all weapons. light enough to be air transportable in most cargo airplanes. carry at least a squad of Infantry. highly mobile. capable of attacking all enemy weapon systems. tanks. et al. operate day or night in any environment. etc. Neither the US nor any other country knows how to achieve this ideal. All battlefield fighting vehicles attempt to balance these competing require. ments to serve one or the other characteristic more effectively. The inevitable and universal result is a multiplicity of vehicle types ranging from very light armored personnel carriers with small caliber weapons to heavily armored. large caliber weapon main battle tanks. The equally inevitable result is a multiplicity of tacties and doctrine to utilize these varied vehicles. taking into account both advantages and disadvantages of the compromises that have gone into the particular vehicle. It has been amply shown that tanks cannot survive alone on the modern battlefield. but that supporting Infantry Is required as well. The problem has been. and continues to be. how to get troops to the proper place. The tank has no room (but at times infantry have ridden on top at considerable peril from artillery fragments) to carry a squad. The older personnel carriers (such as the M113 or the BMP) have both limited survivability and offensive- capabillty. The BFV represents an effort to upgrade in a major way both survivability and offensive capability. But that does not mean that it has the characteristics of a main battle tank. It complements the tank. It has to be employed with due regard for both its. purpose of bringing infantry near the tank battlefield with Increased survivability and. its purpose as a fightingvehicle adjacent to the tank battlefieldi and in other arenas where tanks are not present (including those situations where their weight precludes their presence). The multiple purposes of mechanized infantry include: Mounted Tasks: Move under fire w/combined arms team. close with the enemy mounted. suppress while moving or stationary. destroy infantry. destroy lightly armored vehicles. destroy tanks. and negotiate water obstacles. Dismounted Tasks: Observation.. security. patrolling.. fire and maneuver dismounted. destroy. capture personnel. operate in builtup areas.. breach and emplace obstacles. destroy lightly armored vehicles. and destroy tanks. The BFV is not intended for use in a sidebyside role with. tanks.Rather. it will be employed to complement tank fires at. long ranges. provide overwatch suppression. of antiarmor systems. bring infantry forward and provide fire support to them in their dismounted role. and engage counterpart infantry fighting vehicles. The BFV needs mobility comparable to that of the- tank to maintain its deployment capability in cover. overwatch. and lefilade positions related to the tank battlenot to "run" with the tanks. There is no doubt that the BFV can be defeated by being hit by antitank weapons. This statement. however. needs to be taken in the context of these considerations: The BFVs longrange weapons and superior turret and fire control system give it a high probability of firing first and effectively. Both the 7.62 machinegun and the 25mm cannon are very lethal defenses against the use of shortrange antitank weapons (e.g. RPO7). Both the M1 and M2 have been specifical. ly designed to operate together in the move ment to contact. The Ml. with its superior frontal armor and stabilized 105mm cannon. leads the formation. The M2. with its stabilized 25mm cannon. 7.62 machinegun. and infantryoperated firing port weapons. following behind to provide suppressive fire and security for the M1. The element oper ating in the overwatch position also plays an important role. and again. the Ml and M2 were speciflually designed to accomplish this mission. The M2 can destroy and suppress enemy tanks. infantry fighting vehiclesi and personnel at long ranges with its TOW missile system. 25mm cannon. and 7.62 ma chinegun. thus allowing the maneuver team to close with the enemy. The infantry nor mally dismounts from the M2 at the overwatch position to provide local security. The integrated sight unit on the M2 allows these fires from the overwatch Position to be ef. fective through enemy or friendly obscur ants and at night. Once the enemy has been located in the movement to contact. the actions of the:ma neuver element depend on the. type and ef. fectivenesa of the enemy fire. If the enemy is not returning effective antlarmor fire. the team would continue to. maneuver toward the enemy position while suppressing them with stabilized fire. from the ML 105mm cannon. artillery. and. air assets. The M2 allows. the Infantry for the first time to con# tribute to this suppressive fire with its stabilized 25mm cannon. 7.62 machinegun. and infantry firing ports. Should effective antiarmor fire not be encountered. the maneu4 ver element would move over the objectiveThe M2 allows the infantry for the first time to operate under enemy or friendly overhead artillery bursts and smoke whilbeffectively firing all weapons Should the maneuver element encounter effective antiarmor. fire. it would. find( hull defilade positions to return suppressive fire. Neither the M1 nor the M2 can maneuver against. effective antiarmor fire. It artillery and air assets couldi not destroy these antiarmor positions and they could. not be bypassed. then the infantry would dismount fromi the. M2 to destroy them.. After they had used a covered and concealed route to close with and destroy these antiarmorposh tions. the infantry would rejoin. the M1 and M2 maneuver element and continue mounted along the route. A key consideration is dismounting. the infantry/at the proper time. There is nodoubt that staying too long in the! armored infantry vehicle and deploying the vehicle adja. cent to tanks are errors that have been com. mitted in recent warfare by all participants. The answer lies in proper training. and tactics. not. im abandoning the concept of armored infantry vehioles.