IS A LIQUID PROPELLANT GUN A VIABLE OPTION FOR THE FUTURE MAIN BATTLE TANK IN T H E UNITED STATES ARMY?

A thesis presented t o the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE

CURTIS L. MCCOY, MAJ, USA B.S., United States Military Academy, 1978 M.B.A., Florida Institute of Technology, 1987

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 1992

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE

Name of candidate: Title of thesis:

MAJ Curtis L. McCoy Is A Liquid Propellant Gun A Viable Option

For The Future Main Battle Tank In The United States Army?

, Thesis , ,
Member

Committee Chairman

~ ~ u i l f r e d Dellv L.

Member, Consulting Faculty

Accepted this 5th day of June 1992 by:

~ h ) l i p 4. Brookes, Ph.D.

, Director, Graduate Degree

Programs

The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.)

ABSTRACT

I S A L l QU l D PROPELLANT GUN A V l ABLE OPT l ON FOR THE FUTURE MA l N BATTLE TANK IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY b y MAJ Curtis L. McCoy, USA, 112 pages.
This study is an examination of three areas: historical U.S. liquid propellant development, liquid propellant logistical considerations and the technical considerations in the application of a liquid propellant gun in a combat vehicle. The study examines the potential and demonstrated benefits of liquid propellants for the military. The study uses the solid propellant guns technology as the baseline to conduct a comparison of liquid propellant guns in the same operational requirements. The analysis b y the author on the logistical impacts focuses on the industrial base conversion, production costs of propellants, ammunition transportation requirements, and liquid propellant demilitarization. The analysis continues with a discussion on combat vehicle survivability, firepower, and mobility. This study concludes that a liquid propellant gun is a viable option for the Army to pursue. The primary logistical advantage with liquid propellant is volume efficiency which impacts storage, transportation, and ammunition processing. A tank equipped with a liquid propellant gun has advantages over a sol id propel 1 ant gun in rates of fire, basic ammunition load capability, survivability of the system, and vehicle weight reductions.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to recognize several people whose help and support have made this study possible. First, I want to thank my wife, Eleane and my children, Sarah, Jason and Andrew. This thesis would not have been completed without their total love, prayers, spiritual support, understanding and hours of'long editing and typing support. Second, I would like to extend my appreciation to the members of my research committee, Mr. James F. Fox, Mr. Dwain H. Skelton, and COL Wilfred Dellva. Their patience and objective insights were instrumental in my completion of this thesis. Third, I would like to thank the members of my A 2 2 1 , Research Methodology I I , seminar group. The group, led by COL Robert A. Gimbert, provided the logistical insights that were critical to effective analytical review of the project. The group provided the needed encouragement during the winter months of Term I I which assisted me in staying on course. Finally, I would like to thank the staff in the Combined Arms Research Library. Especially Craig McLean and John Rogers for their insight on how to find research materials, professional encouragement and assistance which formed a foundation for the completion of my thesis.

TABLE O F CONTENTS THESIS APPROVAL PAGE

........................................ii ABSTRACT ................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

............................................ v LIST O F FIGURES ............................................ vii LIST O F TABLES ............................................ viii CHAPTER 1. DEFININQTHE PROBLEM ............................. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ....................................... 1 Background......................................... 2 Assunptions ........................................2 D e f i n i t i o n s ........................................ 3 L i m i t a t i o n s ........................................ 5 D e l i m i t a t i o n s ...................................... 6 S i g n i f icence o f Study .............................. 6 Methodology ........................................ 7 S u m r y ........................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 . SURVEY O F LITERATURE ............................11 I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................... 11 P a r t I - H i s t o r i c a l ............................... 12 P a r t I 1 - Emerging Qun P r o p u l s i o n
............................ 17 ..............28 ...........................................32 F LIQUID PROPELLANT DEVELOPMENT ........ 33 CHAPTER 3 . HISTORY O l n t r o d u c t l o n ...................................... 33 P a r t I - B u l k Loaded L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Guns .......36 P a r t II - Regenerative L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Quns ....................................42
Technologies P a r t I l l - L o g i s t i c a l Considerations Sumnary

................................48 ........................................... 52 CHAPTER 4 . CONVENTIONAL G U N PROPULSION REVIEW ..............54 I n t r o d u c t i o n ......................................54 P a r t I - C o n v e n t i o n a l P r o p u l s i o n .................. 55 P a r t II -Advanced Conventional P r o p u l s i o n ........60 Sumnary ........................................... 65 CHAPTER5 . LOalSTlCALCONSIOERATIONS ....................... 66 I n t r o d u c t i o n ......................................66 P a r t I - I n d u s t r i a l Base Conversion ............... 66 P a r t II - P r o p e l l a n t P r o d u c t i o n Cost Savings 70 Factacs ...................................... P a r t I l l - Comnercial P r o d u c t i o n o f L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t s ..................................7 1 P a r t I V - T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Issues ................... 72 P a r t V - D e m i l i t a r i z a t i o n Issues ..................79 Sumnrry ........................................... 79 CHAPTER6 . C O M B A T VEHICLE ANALYSIS ......................... 81 I n t r o d u c t i o n ......................................8 1 Part I - S u r v i v a b i l i t y ............................. 82 P a r t 1 I - Firepouer ............................... 87 P a r t I I I - M o b i l i t y ...............................88 Sumnary ...........................................89 CHAPTER 7 . CONCLUSIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 90 I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................... 90 P a r t I - Conclusions ..............................90 P a r t I l - Recomnendat ions .........................9 3 Sumnary ........................................... 9 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................ 95 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .................................. 104

Part Ill A Review o f Past L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Developments Swmary

LIST OF FIGURES Figure

1. 2.
3.

Page

Schematic Diagram o n a Monopropellant Bulk Loaded Prope 1 lant Gun.. Schematic Diagram on a Biopropellant Bulk Loaded Propel lant Gun.. Interior Ballistic Cycle of a Bulk Loaded Propellant Gun.

................. .: .........37
........................... .38
...........43

.............................40
............44

4.

Schematic Diagram on a Monopropellant Regenerative Injection Liquid Propellant Gun. Schematic Diagram on a Biopropellant Regenerative Injection Liquid Propellant Gun Interior Ballistic Cycle of a Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun..

5.
6.

.................. . 4 6
.............75

7. Logistical Advantages of Liquid Propellants

LIST OF TABLES Tab 1 e

1

Page

. Amnunition Data .........................................69 2 . EstimatedCosts of Propellants ..........................72 3 . Cubeverses Weight Comparisons .......................... 76
. ATPTrailerComparisons ................................. 76 5 . Comparison of M I A 1 Solid Propellant Verses Liquid Propel lant Vehicle Systems .............................. 83
4

CHAPTER 1 DEFINING THE PROBLEM Introduction The primary purpose of this thesis is to examine

whether the Army should continue development and adopt the liquid propellant gun (LPG), or remain solely with the current projected improvements of the solid propellant gun (SPG) for the future main battle tank. The focus of this discussion

will be on the several key elements of the life cycle process of both technologies with respect to the future main battle tank.

A baseline combat vehicle, the MlAl Abrams Main Battle

Tank, will be used to compare SPG and LPG technologies. Today's Army's arsenal of weapon systems relies Solid

heavily on one type of propulsion delivery system.

Propel lants (SP) have been the principal means of del ivery for conventional munitions. military for decades. emerging technologies, SP charges have met the need for the Even with the currently available and the advances in SPs have been

relatively minor.

These small

advances

in SPs have been

achieved at great expense. best!

Advances have been limited at

Background Slow technology advances in SPs, primarily related to increased muzzle velocities in tank cannons, have forced a constant review of the state-of-the-art propulsion Slow progress

technologies and possible future technologies.

towards increased muzzle velocity coupled with the desire to reduce costs, and increase efficiency while meeting current mission requirements thought. have brought about a new school of

In searching for new, more efficient systems in the

field of propulsion, the application of Liquid Propellants (LPs) to gun systems is one possible promising option. The

desired characteristic of any future gun requirement is to have lethality on the modern battlefield preferably range of at the

extended

ranges greater

than the effective

enemy's armament.

For the purposes of this paper, it will be

considered that ranges from 0 close range and 2000

2000 m will be defined as a To

3000 m will be the extended range.

achieve that end, accuracy and mass firepower are considered to be very important elements. LPs could possibly offer these advantages over SPs. A S S U ~ D ~ ~ O ~ S
(1)

A regenerative LPG for the MlAl tank could be

demonstrated during F Y 9 4 . (2) Reliability and maintainability characteristics are solvable on the LPG.

(3)

Two basic 120mm rounds M829A1, Armor Piercing

Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS-T) and the M830, High Explosive Anti-tank Multipurpose with Tracer (HEAT-MP-T) will be used for all technologies.
(4) A baseline vehicle, the MIA1 Abrams Main Battle

Tank, will be used to compare the different technologies.

(5

Information

about

the

Army's

current

gun

propulsion technologies is available for review.

(6)

The LPG will have an autoloader system on the

MlAl tank or a future main battle tank. Definitions

(1

Solid

Propellant

Gun

(SPG),

conventional

propulsion technology on the current Army tank fleet, is the basic chemical energy propulsion used to propel the family of cannon fired projectiles down range. The current solid

propellant round consists of a projectile partially enclosed by a combustible case of granular type propellant.
(2)

Liquid Propellant Gun (LPG) is a concept based control of the amount of propellant in the

on mechanical

combustion chamber.

There are three general types of LPGs: It is essentially a solid

a.

Bulk Loaded LPG:

propellant gun with the necessary changes to accommodate the new propellant in the breech. The propellant initially fills

the combustion chamber behind the projectile before ignition. All the propellant is ignited at one time

b. combustion

Regenerative LPG: pumps

The gas pressure in the propellant into the

chamber

additional

combustion chamber during the ballistic cycle. c. powered pump Externally the

pumped LPG:

An

externally into the

forces

additional

propellant

combustion chamber during the ballistic cycle.

(3)

Liquid Propellant Traveling Charge Gun (LPTCG)

is the concept of loading liquid propellant into a dispenser attached to the projectile. Initial acceleration is provided in the chamber between the The driving

by burning a propellant charge

traveling-charge dispenser and the barrel face. charge may be a solid or liquid propellant.
(4) Vulnerability

The characteristics of a system

that cause it to suffer a loss of combat utility or reduction of capabi 1 ity to perform the designated mission(s) as a result of having been battlefield.
(5) Lethality

subjected to a hostile environment on the

The ability of a system to cause the

loss of, or a degradation in, the ability of a target system to complete its designated mission(s).
(6)

Survivability

The capability of a system personnel, materiel and doctrine) to

(resulting from the synergism between design,

tactics, techniques, procedures

avoid, withstand or recover in hostile (man-made and natural) environments without suffering an impairment of its ability to accomplish its designated mission.

(7) Armor Piercing Fin Stablized Discarding Sabot

This a round which is a one piece depleted uranium kinetic energy (KE) penetrator with a combustible case. It is found

in the 120mm class of ammunition as a M829, a M829A1 and a M829E2 and in the lO5mm class of ammunition as a M774, a M833 and a M900. (8) High Explosive Anti-tank with Tracer

This a

shaped charged warhead round which has a combustible case with a multiaction fuse. It is found in the 120mm class of

ammunition as a M830 and in the 105mm class of ammunition as M456. (9) SMART Ammunition

These are high

explosive

target activated "fire and forget" cannon launched munitions such as the XM943 smart target activated, fire and forget (STAFF) 120mm tank round and the armor piercing enhanced

kinetic energy weapon (X-rod) round coupled with a terminal guidance. (10) Enhanced Kinetic Energy Weapon (X-rod) an advanced tank fired, guided kinetic energy

It is

projectile
A

system capable of defeating targets at extended ranges. superior hit probability is expected
by

using

competing

concepts, command guided or "fire and forget' guidance. Limitations This document will be written at the unclassified

level to enable the widest dissemination of the document to the Department of Defense community. 5 Most of the advanced

technologies are classified and though not addressed in any depth here, the level of unclassified treatment will give the reader a basic knowledge of the concept. Del imitations The objective of this study is to concentrate on the liquid propellant gun concept. Although there is work ongoing in traveling charge propulsion and electromagnetic propulsion, the study wi 1 1 focus on the 1 iquid propel lant gun with pr imary application to the MlA1, Abrams tank. Significance of the Studv The United States has spent and is still large amounts of money platform for the tank. to develop an spending gun

improved main

The tank is generally considered one

of the dominant ground weapon systems on the battlefield, as was shown in the Southwest Asia (SWA) campaign during

Operation Desert Storm.

The tank contributes to the major It is one of the

success or failure in land mounted warfare.

key elements in the combined arms team for the Army ground maneuver forces in AirLand Doctrine. The need for increased

lethality on the modern battlefield has always driven the requirements for a better tank cannon. The intent of this

study is to show through historical, logistical and technical factors the significantly enhanced capability the liquid

propellant gun might offer as a combat multiplier when it is mounted on a tank in a combined arms team.

Methodology The primary research methodologies used in this thesis are a descriptive archival and a comparative analytical

evaluation. The descriptive archival methodology is designed to concentrate in liquid gun propulsion with subheaders in combat vehicle firepower, combat vehicle survivability and combat vehicle sustainment on the future battlefield. Past studies are an excellent source to establish a common foundation from which to start the thesis. During the review of past technology developments in LP, criteria can be determined to evaluate the potential for the system in the future. These sources are critical to providing an analytical base from which to project conclusions for the future of LPGs in tanks. The review of past studies includes sources related to the technical design character istics of LPG. There is a large body of information in technical reports which describes the experiments which range from bulk loading to a regenerative gun in actual hardware mounts. Due to the rapidly changing

technology there appears to be questions whether a LPG is now plausible on a combat vehicle on the battlefield. To arrive at an end state in this thesis which addresses whether LPG is an option for the future main battle tank, critical performance elements have developed from the

above research materials.

These elements are used as the

criteria to compare the two technologies against the baseline

M l A l tank.

Chapter 1

Defining the Problem

The primary objective in Chapter 1 is the introduction of LP as an alternate gun propulsion when compared against the current SP conventional technology which is being used on the
M l A l tank today.

The introduction providesthe foundation for

the thesis and describes the game rules for the study by enumerating the assumptions, definitions and limitations. chapter concludes with the study's significance and The the

research methodology to be used. Chapter 2

Survey of Literature focuses on sources the variety by the and quality in of the

Chapter 2 relevant research

used

author

preparation if this study. three useful parts:

The chapter is subdivided into LPG development, technical

historical

considerations and logistical considerations. Chapter 3

Historv of Liauid Propellant Development

Chapter 3 reviews the historical development of the Department of Defense (DOD) Liquid Propellant (LP) Program from the end of World War I I to the present. The chapter is

divided into four defined periods in which there were focused LP programs. These periods are Post World War l l (l947-l9SO),

(1950-1957), Engineering

(1968-1977) achievements

and and

(1977 concept

to

the

present). are

developments

addressed from each period. Chapter 4

Conventional Gun Propulsion Review conventional gun

Chapter 4 summarizes the primary

propulsion concepts currently being studied in the research and development community. A brief definition of each concept is discussed followed by its advantages and disadvantages. The objective of this portion of the thesis is to develop an elementary understanding of the DOD research and development community's efforts to gain marked improvement in the solid propellant guns. This should be the foundation from which to assess the LPG. Chapter 5

Logistical Analysis analysis of the

A

Chapter 5 provides the reader an

logistical impact of the LPG on the sustainment system. direct comparison of the SPG and LPG is directed

at the

industrial base conversion, cost saving factors, commercial production of LP, transportation issues, manpower resupply, and demilitarization and disposal of propellants. Hopefully,

the chapter will give the reader a basic appreciation of the logistical ramifications of L P .

Chapter 6

Combat Vehicle Impact Analysis

Chapter 6 provides the reader an analysis of the LPG from the three functional tank requirements: survivability, firepower and mobility. evaluation of the The author conducts a subjective requirements in a direct

functional

comparison between the SPG and LPG. Chapter 7

Conclusions and Recommendations

The answer to the thesis is determined based on the analysis conducted in Chapters 5 and 6. of the meaning of the study. It draws a conclusion

It also relates the study to

other works and make recommendations for future studies. Summary The purpose of Chapter 1 was to explain the importance of the study and the three areas being investigated. The

introduction and background outlined the need for a new gun propulsion technology, identified a possible candidate for review, drew the framework of the study, stated the described research methodology to be used throughout the effort, and the mechanical structure of the thesis b y chapter. The need for

a new gun propulsion system for the Army's main battle tank could not be greater than at this time. The future does not

promise any near-term breakthroughs in the solid propellant arena. Concepts such as electrothermal technology are not a

near-term options in solv ing the gun propulsion requirements of today but liqu id prope llant could be!

CHAPTER 2
SURVEY OF LITERATURE

Introduction This survey of literature performs atwo-fold mission. It first demonstrates to the reader the technical sources and variety of research materials used in this study. Secondly,

the survey provides a basis from which further research can be conducted by any reader in the three principal study areas. The three study areas are: historical Army liquid propellant

gun development, emerging gun propulsion technologies and the criteria to evaluate both them and the logistical impact of sustaining new weapon systems. The primary source of research material was the

Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Also, the study incorporated supplemental

publications and notes which were provided to or developed by the writer during a previous assignment at the Ballistic Research Laboratory. Arms Command, Combat
U.S.

Army

Additionally, the Combined activity provided

Developments

information pertaining to current or ongoing development in the liquid propellant gun program.

A majority

of the research material

used

can be

divided into three categories; books, government documents and periodicals. Books provided an excellent review of trends and They also

the development of tank cannons in combat vehicles. assisted

in establishing the criteria to evaluate a new

emerging technology against the currently employed technology.

U.S. Government documents were a primary source of collecting

data, from actual test firing and modeling, to evaluate the liquid propellant guns against conventional solid propellant guns. Periodicals also established additional criteria for on trends in armored

evaluations and outside viewpoints vehicle developments.

This chapter is divided into three parts: historical, emerging gun propulsion Each technology and the logistical essential

considerations.

section

identifies

research material used to explore that area of interest. Part I Historical There is a significant amount of research material available on the development of tanks from World War I to the present. The materials provide a very good worldwide view of

current technology development but lack greatly in discussing, in any depth, emerging advanced technologies. The only clear

source documents that discuss the historical development of liquid propellant propulsion are in government documents. The

following

is a

concise

summary of

those critical

source

documents which trace the origin of the liquid propellant program in the United States with a desired cannon application in a weapon system. Books In Antitank, Richard E . Simpkin provides a very wide look "at what kind of doctrine, major equipment and force structure the mechanized battle as a whole, on the ground and in the air space just above it, may call for in the closing decade of this century of technological revolutions. 1
.8

Simpkin attempts "to lead with technical arguments and the state of the art, and to look at the principles and trends of weapon systems rather than their historical origins.

"'

He

concludes with the impact of new weapon systems factors on training, logistics and manning. In T e c h n o l o w in War: Development on the Modern Impact of Science and Weapon Battlefield, Kenneth Macksey

explores the impact of technology on current and emerging weapon systems. He spans his discussion from 1915-2000. He

is able to identify specific key developments on main battle tanks and trace their projected technological advancements to the year 2000.

'~ichardE. Simpkin, Antitank: An Air mechanized ResDonse to Armored Threats in the 90s (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1982), 8. 'lbid.

R.P.

Hunnicutt has written a series of books which

provide a summarized, in depth review of the U.S. Army tank program from 1914 to the present. the American Heavy Tank, Sherman: Medium Tank, Patton: Fire~ower: A Historv of A History of the American

A History of the American Main Battle

Lank, and
armored systems, equipment.

Abrams:

A History of the American Main Battle Tank

provide a well versed look at trends in the evolution of the tank force especially tank in types and of fire control loading

gun mounting,

guns,

automatic

U.S. Government Documents

"Liquid Propellant Guns," by Walter F. Morrison, John D. Knapton, and Melvin J. Bulman provides an excellent review which summarizes liquid propellant gun research in the United States. Liquid propellants have been the focus of periodic

research efforts from just after the Second World War to the present.j development regenerative technologica
1

i s paper discusses, of bulk loaded

in depth, the historical propellant The bulk guns of and the

liquid guns.

liquid

propellant

summary data generated in the report is focused

on the historical progression of the interior ballistics of bulk loaded liquid propellant guns and regenerative liquid propellant guns. 3 ~ a l t e r F. Morrison, John D. Knapton and Melvin J. Bulman, "Liquid Propellant Guns," ADA188575 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, October 1987). 1.

"Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," by Walter

F. Morrison, John D. Knapton, and Guenter Klingenberg is a

survey of some of the recent and ongoing 1 iquid propellant research in both the United States and Germany. a brief summary of past investigations and It provides the limiting The

technology factors to liquid propellant development. survey includes Germany's progress and major

obstacles to

overcome in successfully demonstrating a liquid propellant in a 105mm or greater test fixture. It concludes that liquid

propellant propulsion has evolved over the past forty years into a goal to develop improved liquid propellant regenerative designs and component mechanisms and to further improve

existing propellant candidates. 4 "The Interior Ballistics of Regenerative Liquid

Propellant Guns," by Walter F. Morrison, Paul G. Baer, Melvin J. Bulman, and John Mandzy current development of is a paper which summarizes the regenerative liquid

large caliber

monopropellant guns.

Also it reviews the experimental test

firing results of regenerative liquid propellant guns ranging from 0.35 inch t o 105mm. The paper traces liquid propellant

developed from the 1940s t o the present, t o include the major engineering test failures during the 1970s. It concludes that

%alter F. Morrison, John D. Knapton and Guenter Klingenberg, "Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," ADB090195 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, January 1985), 36.

the focus of the U.S. Army liquid propellant efforts is the development and testing of a 155mn, technology demonstration fixture. 5 ."Tri-Service Plan for Liquid Propellant Technology for Gun Applications," by Richard H. Comer and Walter F. Morrison is a plan prepared and by the Task by Force Group the Joint for Liquid of

Propellant Guns

approved

Directors

Laboratories. It was not implemented.

An updated version of

this program was presented to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering for discussion with the House Armed Services Committee staff in August 1979, but no program was initiated. A synopsis of events since then leading to the August version of the Tri-Service P lan for Liquid 1979

Prope 1 lant the

Technology

for Gun

Appl-ications is contained within

documentation. "Liquid Propellant Technology Program," by Walter F. Morrison was prepared at the request of Lieutenant General D. Keith, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research, Development and

Acquisition, in 1981 to develop a program which would "provide the liquid propellant technology base required to decide the advisability of developing liquid propellant guns for the

%alter F. Morrison, Paul G. Baer, Melvin J. Bulrnan and John Mandzy, "The Interior Ballistics of Regenerative Liquid Propellant Guns," ADA190020 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: October 1987). 32.

1990s. " 6

This

document

tied

the

Department

of

Defense

services together into a Tri-Service program focused on liquid propellants. Part I I Emerging Gun P r o ~ u l s i o nTechnologies Books do not address in any specific detail the

subject of advanced gun propulsion programs which currently revolutionize the armored combat vehicle. Most documents of

that nature are classified and wi 1 1 not be part of this study. The largest source of unclassified materials which discusses liquid propellant guns is government technical reports.

Periodicals assist in the evaluation of new technologies by identifying additional areas of consideration. Periodicals

contain additional thoughts on the subject which are worth review. Books Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, by Richard E. Simpkin attempts "to explore in depth the basic facts of a tanker's life and their influences on how he is trained and led and how his machine is designed. " I The book focuses on

6 ~ a l t e r F. Morrison, "Liquid Propellant Technology Program," AD6056054 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, January 1981), 1. '~ichard Simpkin, Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, (Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1983): 4.

the key elements the analysts and subsystem designers must address in developing a modern combat vehicle. Simpkin is

able to further address key differences between East and West in design technology philosophies. The Dangers of New Weapon Systems, edited by William Gutleridge and Trevor Taylor is a series of inter-related

papers, methods and criteriato assess current and new weapons technologies. The subjects range from criteria for evaluating the dangers and characteristics of new weapon systems, to the process of weapons development and mechanism to manage and control it. Tank Warfare, by Richard E. Simpkin begins with a broad look at the development of tank warfare and attempts to identify trends to the present. look at the tank Simpkin takes an in-depth firepower, mobility,

design factors of

survivability, fightability, and design constraints. The book includes lessons learned by NATO and the Soviet Union in tank design

.
U.S. Government Documents "Liquid Propellant Traveling Charge Gun Concept", by

Eugene Ashley is a report which "explores the feasibility of a liquid propellant traveling charge gun concept, which has been proposed as a means for improving the performance of high

velocity guns."'

The growth potential for a 1 iquid propellant

gun system with a traveling charge is discussed in depth with muzzle velocity measurements taken from actual firings. "A Propulsion System Comparison Study For the 1 2 0 m Anti-Armor Cannon," b y Paul G. Baer, Catherine F. Banz, lngo

W. May, and Walter F. Morrison is a study which explores the

different types of near term advanced technologies impact on the performance of a 120mm high performance cannon. investigation performance includes an of examination conventional of gun the limits The to and

potential

propulsion

compares them to the potential performance of a regenerative liquid propellant gun. The study was focused on key interior

ballistic parameters which were used throughout the parametric study. The clear determining factor was the potential for

increased muzzle velocity which could result in significant improvements in overall gun system effectiveness. The study

used a criteria of five to ten percent increases in striking velocity as important enough to justify substantial

developmental effort on such technology. 9

'~ugene Ashley, "Liquid Propel lant Travel ing Charge Gun Concept," ADA033971 (Burlington, VT: General Electric Company, November 1976), 1. 'paul Q . Baer, Catherine F. Banz, lngo W. May and Walter F. Morrison, "A Propulsion System Comparison Study for the 1 2 0 m Anti-Armor Cannon," ADA187175 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, August 1987), 1 .

"Comparison of Predicted Muzzle Flash For Solid and Regenerative Liquid Propel lant Guns," by Paul Q . Baer, lngo W. May, and Walter F. Morrison is a paper which addresses muzzle flash and the associated blast issues for the charge designer and the soldier on the battlefield. The paper uses a 155mm The

self-propelled Howitzer as the baseline combat vehicle.

paper has an excellent discussion on the predicted potential for muzzre flash between a regenerative liquid propel lant gun and a conventional solid propellant gun. The muzzle flash

calculations used M30A1 propellant gun and hydroxyl a m o n i u m nitrate (HAN) based l iquid propel lant, LPG 1845, for the 155mm liquid propellant gun. The reduced vehicle signature with the use of liquid propellants emphasized an implied reduction in crew and vehicle vulnerability on the modern battlefield. "Reclassification and Greasecompatibility Studies for Liquid propellants," by William J. Cruice is a study to

determine the outcome of various greases coming in contact with liquid propellants in gun fixtures. The results address if ignition

the possible crew and vehicle vulnerabilities

should occur from the decomposition of the liquid propellant by this contact. "Tech Base Propulsion Technologies Effects on Weapon System Reliability," by Faust Denicola, Walter Arnold, Gayle Beavers, Paul Crise, and Jane Krolewski is a study using U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) methodology for estimating the reliability of weapons systems early in

development even prior

to any system testing.

The study advanced (LP), three

addresses four types of advanced gun propulsion: solids propellant (EM), (-1, and liquid propellant (ET)

electromagnetic

electrothermal

for

different weapon system types:

artillery, armor and air

defense. The study identifies the high risk subsystems on the above listed advanced weapon systems technologies. "The Effect of Propellant Composition on Secondary Muzzle Blast Overpressure," by George E . Keller studies the secondary muzzle flash from the reignition of a mixture of fuel-rich exhaust systems. gases and the entrained air in cannon affect

The study

examines three

factors which

secondary muzzle flash: chemical factors, physical factors and mechanical factors. "Sensitivity Characterization of Low Vulnerability (LOVA) Propellants," by M.S. Kirshenbaum, L. Avrami and B.

Strauss is a technical report that describes the results of an investigation that was conducted to determine the sensitivity properties of a number of candidate LOVA propellants. The

report includes thermochemical properties in the comparison between the LOVA propel lants. 111 candidates and the current conventional

"M.S. Kirshenbaum, L. Avrami and 6 . Strauss, "Sensitivity Characterization of Low Vulnerability (LOVA) Propellants," ADA126130 (Dover, NJ: U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Large Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory, March 1983), 1.

"Low

Temperature

Properties

of

HAN-Based

Liquid

Propellants," by John 0. Knapton and Walter F. Morrison is a study to examine the dynamic viscosity of potential propellants Celsius. "Combustion Processes inconsolidated Propellants," by lngo W. May and Arpad A. Juhasz is a memorandum report which exams the research efforts for higher muzzle velocities in gun propulsion through consolidated propellants as a means of increasing the charge-to projectile mass ratio for a given chamber volume. 1 1 "Liquid Propellants For Gun Applications." by Walter F. Morrison, John D Knapton, and Guenter Klingenberg is a technical report of the state-of-the-art liquid propellant technology, its potential and limitations, as we11 as a from room temperature to about -65 liquid degrees

prognosis for its development and application. benefits of addresses the liquid in propellant portion the areas of

The potential of the survey system

advantages

technical,

performance, operational potential, logistical, and financial.

I n particular the report addresses the operational potential

in design criteria, such as

Nuclear Biological and Chemical

l1lngo W. May and Arpad A. Juhasz, "Combustion Processes in Consolidated Propellants," ADA101163 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Ballistic Research Laboratory, May 1981), 1.

protection,

vulnerability

reduction,

mobility

issues,

transportability and resupply related to a liquid propellant gun system. 12 "Liquid Propellant Guns," by Walter F. Morrison, John

D. Knapton and Melvin J. Bulman is a study which includes a

comparison of the performance of monopropellants, bulk loaded propellant guns, and conventional solid propellant guns. "The Accuracy of Tank Main Armament", by Joseph M.

Olah and Fred L. Bunn is a report which discusses the accuracy of main armaments on armored systems; with a focus on tank cannons. It presents an indepth discussion into the classes Also, it describes required data to The

and sources of gun error.

calculate hit probabilities of tank fired munitions.

paper identifies possible criteria which should be addressed in any new weapon system. "Detailed Characterization of the Interior Ballistics of Slotted Stick Propellant," Albert W. Horat by Frederick W. Robbins and report which investigates

is a technical

slotted stick propellant development. identify

The study attempts to

those mechanisms which increase the thermodynamic

12~ot+ison,"Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," 31-

32.

efficiency of stick propellants over granular propellants for a given charge weight. 13 "Test Results From a Two-Stage Traveling Charge Liquid Propellant Gun," by lrvin C. Stobie, John D. Knapton, Bruce D. Bensinger, and Robert A. Pate is a test report for a 4 0 m fractional traveling charge (FTC) gun system. The test

demonstrated the abi 1 ity to apply a 1 iquid travel ing charge to a projectile with a conventional solid propellant charge. "High Performance Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun Study," by J. Michael VanDerwerken is a study which examines the advantages of a high performance regenerative liquid

propellant gun in a future main battle tank.

"The key issues

evaluated were liquid propellant (LP) gun configurations, gun performance characteristics, LP weapon system integration

feasibility, vulnerability and logistics. -14 "Ballistic Investigations of a High-Performance,

Regenerative, Liquid Propellant Gun," by Cris Watson, John D. Knapton, Walter F. Morrison, and D. Maher is an investigation in the application of liquid propellants for gun propulsion systems". This study demonstrates that a
30mm, liquid

13~rederickW. Robbins and Albert W. Horat, "Detailed Characterization of the Interior Ballistics of slotted Stick Propellant," ADA147499 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, September 1 9 8 4 ) , 9. 'l~ichaelJ. VanDerwerken, "High Performance Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun Study," AD8099639 (Pittsfield, MA: Qeneral Electric Company, Ordnance Systems, February 1986), 1.

propellant regenerative gun can operate in the highperformance, tank-cannon regime. *.IS Periodicals "The Two-Man Tank: Linwood E . An Idea Whose Time Has Come," by

Blackburn compares the current main battle tank It is a good discussion of the

designs with future designs.

advantages which technology has enabled the tank designers to go.from a four man crew to a two man crew. He summarizes the

advantages of tank design with crews that have less than four personnel, in the areas of reduced vehicle size, reduced

vulnerability. reduced procurement and operating costs, and improved strategic transportability. "Human Factors Challenges in Armored Vehicle Design,

..

by R. Mark Brown discusses three human factors which he felt chal lenges the design evolution of armored vehicles. They are weight versus survivability, worldwide adaptability of combat vehicles, and crewmen information overload. He presents a

discussion on the size and weight trade off within any new weapon system that effects human factors. "The Heavily-Armored Gun-Armed Main Battle Tank is not Optimized for Mechanized Warfare," by Craig Koerner and

" ~ r i sWatson, John D. Knapton, Walter F. Morrison and D. Maher, "Ballistic Investigating of a High-Performance Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun," ADA224593 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, February 1990), 1.

Michael

O'Connor driven

is by

an

interesting modern

article tactical

on

design

philosophy

the

battlefield

requirements. increased

They developed a discussion on the impact of weight and in relationship on a to vision,

vehicle

concealment,

mobility,

dependence

vulnerable

logistical tail which might raise some questions on the impact of liquid propellants. "Future Tank Guns, Part
I:

Solid

and

Liquid

Propellant Guns," by R. M. Ogorkiewicz discusses the future prospects and alternatives for increasing projectile The article a

penetrating through an increased muzzle energy. addresses one method to improve the

effectiveness of

projectile is by increasing the energy per unit of crosssectional area;'' To achieve that end state, the author

discusses the options of increasing the calibre of the tank gun or increasing muzzle velocity of the projectile. parametric comparison between solid propellant propellant is conducted in the 1 2 0 m calibre. and
A

liquid

The study

indicates an enhancement of vehicle survivability as a result of reduced propellant vulnerability. The article concludes

that the growth potential of liquid propellant is in a two stage liquid propellant gun with a traveling charge.

1 6 ~ . M. Ogorkiewicz, "Future Tank Guns, Part I : Sol id and Liquid Propellant Guns," International Defense Review. Vol. 23, No. 12/1990: 1 3 7 7 .

"Liquid Propellant Artillery Proving Begins in the U.S.," by Rupert Pengelley, discusses the liquid propellant (LP) research and development efforts being conducted by

General Electric in the 155mm howitzer class weapons system. The article compares test firing results in muzzle velocity and chamber pressure reproducibility on the test bed 155mm system. The article concludes with the potential positive

benefits of LP in reduced vulnerability to counter-battery fire and the chances of detection by artillery locating radar diminished by resorting to multi-round TOT engagements at low elevation angles. I7 "Extended Range for ,155mm Artillery," by Terrence Ringwood takes a look at the major components that comprise an artillery system and their contributions to range performance. He explores the advantages and disadvantages in the current developmental efforts to improve range performance through solid and liquid propellants

"The Return of the Gunned Tank Destroyer," by Steven R. Witkowski is an analysis of the Soviet Armored threat, technology, and potential doctrine. of The article such as

current antitank addresses the

growth

technologies

electromagnetic rail guns, liquid propellant guns and hypervelocity missi les which he be1 ieves are not mature enough for

" ~ u p e r tPengel ley, "Liquid Propel lant Arti 1 lery Proving Begins in the U.S.," International Defense Review, Vol. 23, No. 12/1990: 1379-1380.

battlefield application.

Conventional cannons are his only

solution for meeting any problem in the future. "Liquid Propellant Charges for Gun and Mortar

Ammunition," by Wolfram Witt and Karlheinz Reinelt explores the potential advantages of liquid propellant charges for gun munition. ammunition The employment of could lead to liquid propellants which in gun the

benefits

reduce

vulnerability of propellant detonation when hit by enemy fire, employs combustible case ammunition which has a lower weight than the current generation of solid propellant ammunition and smaller dimensions, permit incremental charge loading for the gun system depending on firing range requirements, and which could create financial savings in the ammunition-manufacturing process. 18 "Developing a Tank Autoloader," by John C. Woznick addresses some essent ial criteria in the areas of vehicle

integration, lethality, survivabi ity, and sustainabi lity if an autoloader is to be applied to a future combat veh icle. Part I I Lonistical Considerations The sustainment of the combat maneuver elements plays as major an impact on the battlefield as the combat weapon-

" ~ o l f r a m Witt and Karlheinz Reinelt, "Liquid Propellant Charges for Gun and Mortar Ammunition," International Defense Review, Vol. 14, No. 1/1981, 64.

systems.

To develop a new weapon system is only one part of The sustainment aspects of the equipment The primary

the equation.

require major consideration prior to fielding.

sources of the logistical analysis of liquid propellant are in government documents. U.S. Government Documents "Classification of Liquid Gun Propellants and Raw Materials for Transportation and Storage", by William J.

Cruice is the result of a study "to evaluate the hazardous properties of constituents and formulations of candidate

liquid gun propellants for the purpose of classification in transportat ion. "I9 results with The of study the has very interesting liquid test

several

possible as

propellant CLASS 2

candidates having Explosives.

to be

classified

Military

"Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," by Walter Morrison, John D. Knapton and Guenter Klingenberg is a

technical report which discusses the potential benefits of liquid propellant guns. The report concludes that the primary system advantage is "design flexibility which results from reduced volume requirements for ammunition stowage,

I9wi 1 1 iam J. Cruice, "Classification of Liquid Gun Propellants and Raw Materials for Transportation and Storage," ADA100729 (Rockaway, NY: Hazards Research Corporation, May 1981), 1 .

automation, and propellant stowage remote from the fighting

" compartment. "

The design flexibility of liquid propellants

leads to logistical benefits in the storage, transport and ammunition processing. 21 "Logistics Analysis of the Impacts of Liquid

Propellant on the Ammunition Resupply System," by Maureen M. Stark is a study of the compa~ative cost and performance analysis of a liquid propellant gun system. The study

specifically addresses the impact of liquid propellant on the supply and transportation systems. The baseline vehicle A comparison was

studied was a 155mrn self-propelled howitzer.

made not only with sol id propellant technology of today as exemplified by the bag charges used in modern artillery, but also with possible emerging solid propellant technologies projected for use in the field by the year 2000 against the liquid propellant concept. discussion equipment on usage the Especially interesting was the savings the in manpower of and

significant

when

considering

effects

liquid

propellant on the m u n i t i o n resupply system. concludes that liquid propellants show a

The study for

potential

reducing the requirement for personnel and equipment within

2oMorri son, 32. 2'~bid.

the ammunition resupply system, as compared to bag solid propellants. 22

charge

"An Analysis of the lmpacts of Transitioning a Liquid Propellant (LP) and an LP Gun System into the Army's

Inventory," by Maureen M. Stark is a study which investigates the potential problems associated with introducing a liquid propellant weapon system into the inventory. identified in the study are: facilities. The key areas

pre-production planning for LP stockpile testing

production of LP during transition,

conversion, weapon system transition, developmental (DT)/operational testing (OT), and

Rationalization,

Standardization, and Interoperability (RSI) considerations. 23 The baseline howitzer. "High Performance Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun Study," by J. Michael VanDerwerken is a study which examines the advantages propellant gun issues such of a high performance regenerative liquid vehicle studied was a 155mm self-propelled

in a future main battle tank. requirements and time

Logistical lines for

as manpower

ammunition resupply were examined for both solid and liquid propel 1 ants. 22~aureen M. Stark, "Logistics Analysis of the lmpacts of Liquid Propellant on the Amnunition Resupply System," ADB087488 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, October 1984), 37. 2 3 ~ a u r e e nM. Stark, "An Analysis of the Impacts of Transitioning of Liquid Propellant (LP) and a LP Gun System in the Army's Inventory," ADB100559 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, March 1986), 2.

Sumnary The primary research sources used in this study were discussed and briefly related to the research topic. The

bibliography provides the complete listing of all sources consulted. The parts addressed in this section of the thesis reflect the four areas of investigation:
U.S.

Army liquid

propellant gun development program history, the emerging gun propulsion technologies and the criteria to evaluate them and the logistical impact of sustaining a liquid propellant

program in the field.

Each part attempted to identify the

author's key source material used to develop this thesis. The Government most helpful sources for the at author the were

Technical

Reports

conducted

Ballistic

Research Laboratory (BRL).

The BRL appears to be the lead working the issues and

Department of Defense Laboratory

attempting to develop a liquid propellant 120mn anti-armorcannon for the main battle tank. This thesis attempts from a

user point of view to support why that effort should be completed.

CHAPTER 3 HISTORY OF LIQUID PROPELLANT DEVELOPMENT Introduction To understand the current level of technology of a liquid propellant gun (LPG), a historical review of the

Department of Defense

(DOD) LPG research and

development

efforts beginning in 1947 and continuing to the present will be discussed. The types of LPG concepts and historical

development associated with each will be briefly explored. The goal of this portion of the study is to gain an elementary understanding of the LPG and the different methods to achieve gun propulsion. Chapter 3 will not attempt to provide an in-depth analysis of every present in the DOD. liquid propellant (LP) effort past and Such an effort would be monumental and The objective will be to

beyond the limits of this thesis.

provide a trend of the major efforts directly after World War

I I and focus the reader on the current concepts which promise

application in the near future. LP development in the DOD can be subdivided into four defined periods. The first, Post World War l l (1947-1950),

explored the initial propulsion concepts in externally powered

regenerative guns, direct injection regenerative guns and bulk loaded propel 1 ant guns. The powered pump had to be external 1 y The research quickly dropped the

mounted and was very large.

externally powered regenerative gun for military application and continued on the other two. The second period, (1950-1957), was focused on the bulk loaded propellant gun (BLPG) and the regenerative liquid propellant gun (RLPQ). Problems related to stability during

the interior ballistic phases and the shift from cannons to rockets at the end of the Korean Conflict all but ended DOD efforts in the LP program. The period from 1957-1968 saw very

little if any research in LP. The third period, (1968-1977), saw a relook into the possible potential of LP in the mi 1 itary. was directed toward the bulk The major research The major

loading concept.

impetus in reviving the LP program in this period was the Army's involvement in the Vietnam War and the need to improve the current gun propulsion technology. The Navy was the lead

agency and believed LP would provide an answer to improving the current gun propulsion used on ship weapon systems. The final investigation in period, LP which 1977 to the present, began focused the research an

efforts

predominantly on regenerative initially led the way until a

injection. Tri-Service

Again the Navy Plan for Liquid

Propellant Technology for Gun Application was revived in March 1980' and turned into the DOD Liquid Propellant Technology Program. 2 The Army has reached a point where the current gun propulsion technology shows small growth potential in the near future. by The efforts to make combat vehicles more survivable propellant cannons vulnerability and increasing of the

reducing of

lethality

is an on-going

mission

the DOD

research and development comnunity. meet this requirement

One current attempt to propulsion

is through advanced gun

concepts on the drawing board. concepts, LP will

To better understand these

be analyzed from its conception to the In order, to

current efforts through a historical discussion.

understand the LP program, designers must first review the two competing concepts: bulk loaded liquid propellant guns

(BLLPGs) and regenerative liquid propellant guns (RLPG).

'Richard H. Comer and Walter F. Morrison, "Tri-Service Plan for Liquid Propellant Technology for Gun Applications," ADB055274L (Aberdeen Proving, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, September 1980), 9.

alter F. Morrison, "Liquid Propel lant Technology Program," ADB056054L (Aberdeen Proving Ground. MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, January 1981), 5.

Part I Bulk Loaded Pro~ellantGuns "The bulk-loaded mechanically the liquid propellant gun (BLLPQ) is implementation of the liquid

simplest

propellant ~ o n c e p t . " ~ The BLLPG currently has two types of loading methods: monopropellants, Figure 1. Schematic Diagram on a Monopropellant Bulk Loaded Propellant Gun, or

bipropellants, Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of a Biopropellant Bulk Loaded Propellant Gun. in both methods, the projectile The

is placed in the bore end of the chamber to form a seal.

breech is closed and the air is removed by either a venting or preferably by vacuum line to prevent bubbles in the 1 k u i d propellant which can lead to a catastrophic effect during the subsequent combustion process. 4 The entire volume of

propellant required to fire the projectile is pumped into the combustion chamber at one time. in the monopropellant loading

method, the propellant is pumped directly from the storage tank to the chamber as shown in Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of a Monpropellant Bulk Loaded Propellant Gun). In the

bipropel 1 ant loading method,

a pump and valve system on each

halter F. Morrison, John D. Knapton and Guenter Klingenberg, "Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," ADB090195 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, January 1985), 9.
' T . W Terry, S.R. Jackson, C.E.S. R y ley, B.E. Jones and P.J.H. Wormell, Fighting Vehicles, (London, Great Britain: BPCC Wheatons Ltd., Exeter, 1991), 42.

RESERVOIR

VALVE

PROPELLANT FILL PORT

IGNITION

FIQURE 1. SCHEMATIC DlAQRAM OF A MONOPROPELLANT BULK LOADED PROPELLANT GUN

37

FIGURE 2 . SCHEMATIC DlAQRAM OF A BIOPROPELLANT BULK LOADED PROPELLANT QUN

38

storage tank controls the rate of fill into the chamber to ensure both components are we1 l mixed prior to combustionS as shown in Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of a Monopropellant Bulk Loaded Propellant Gun. The next step is the combustion process as i l lustrated in Figure 3. Propellant Gun. locations: Interior Ballistic Cycle of a Bulk Loaded

The liquid can be ignited from one of three

in the wall of the chamber, at the base of the The breech ignition can be a

projectile, or in the breech.

variety of methods ranging from electric spark to a hot wire. Once the combustion process is initiated,

pressurization is achieved and the projectile is placed in motion. "As the projectile and liquid column are accelerated penetrate the the liquid

down the tube, the gas cavity will column, creating what is known as

Rayleigh-Taylor

instability."'

When this occurs, a ring of liquid remains on "Hot gases flow at high velocity through

the chamber walls.

this ring, which results in turbulent gas-liquid mixing at the inner surface of the ring which is called the Kelvin-Helmholtz

'~olfram Witt and Karlheinz Reinelt, "Liquid Propellant Charges for Gun and Mortar Amnunition." International Defense Review, Vol. 14, No. 1.1981: 65. 'Morr i son, 10.

IGNITION
PROJECTILE

TAYLOR CAVITY

CHAMBER

LIQUID COATING

GUN BARREL

/
\

FIQURE 3 . INTERIOR BALLISTIC CYCLE OF A BULK LOADED PROPELLANT QUN

instability. "I the large

"The Kelvin-Helmhol tz instabi l ity can produce area needed for consumption of the

surface

propellant

in the gun and would also lead to very rapid

combustion after mixing in the area of the burning surface. *.a This mechanism produces a rapid increase in the area of the burning surface. The major difficulty with BLLPG "has been variability in ballistics and occasional catastrophic failures of test hardware. "$ Most BLLPG which have overpressured and led to blamed on errors in ignition. The

a failure have been

irregular high pressures associated with bulk loading have not been fully controlled or understood as of yet. The critical "The

element in a BLLPG appears to be the ignition system.

coupling in space and time of the igniter's energy to the liquid propellant (LP), controls the evolution of the

ballistic process. "I0

As a result, the development work has is not very

been done on a trial and error basis, which efficient. The studies and

assessments thus far indicate

alter F. Morrison, "Liquid Propellants," Ball istic Science and Technoloav Tutorial Interior Ballistics, (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, May 1991), 104.
'Morrison, "Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," 1 1 .

10~orrison,Ball i st ic Science and Technolonv lnterior Ballistics, 106.

Tutor i a1

BLLPG would not be a good candidate for a possible LPG system in a future combat vehicle. Part I I Regenerative Liauid P r o ~ e l l a n tGun "The regenerative liquid propellant gun (RLPG) is mechanically demonstrated control. "I1 more to complex than be capable of the BLLPG, more has two Schematic but has been

precise

ballistic

The RLPG currently Figure

4.

loading methods: Diagram of a

monopropel 1 ants,

Monopropellant Regenerative Injection Liquid Propellant Gun end bipropellants, Figure

5.

Schematic

Diagram

of

Bipropellant Regenerative Injection Liquid Propellant Gun. In the RLPG, the propellant initially fills a reservoir which is separated from the combustion chamber by a piston, and is pumped into the combustion chamber during the ballistic

process through injectors in the piston as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The piston is the critical element which

divides the chamber into a combustion chamber and a propellant reservoir. The injector orifices in the piston head are shown schematically in Figure 4 and Figure 5. "An ignition train,

i orriso on, "Liquid

Propellants for Gun Applications," 1 1 .

42

F I G U R E 4. SCHEHATlC D I A M A M W A MONOPROPELLANT REQENERATIVE I N J E C T I O N L I Q U I D PROPELLANT GUN

43

FIQURE 5 . SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A BIPROPELLANT REQENERATIVE INJECTION LIQUID PROPELLANT GUN

44

consisting of a primer, an ignition charge and in some cases a booster charge complete the system. *#I2 Two primary functions must be performed to make the RLPG process successful. The first function is the controlled rate propellant is injected into the combustion chamber during ignition (Figure 6). As a result of this metered propellant

flow, the combustion cycle is very stable and controlled since there is never more than a small quantity of unburned

propel lant in the combustion chamber at any time.

The abi 1 i ty

to meter the amount of propellant into the combustion chamber permits effect. "I3 "tailoring "The the chamber pressure for a is desired termed is

metering

pressure

process

'regenerative' because the propellant pumping pressure obtained by hydraulic multiplication of the

combustion

chamber. **I4

The hydraulic action

supplies the energy

required to pump the liquid through the injectors.

I2Morrison, Ball istic Science and Technolonv Interior Ballistics, 108.

Tutorial

13Morrison, "Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," 1 1 .

"R.D.M. Furlona. "Liouid P r o ~ e l l a n t for Future SP Howitzers?" l nternational defense deview Vo1 16 (December 1983), 1765.

PROPELLANT

IGNITER

FIQURE 6 . INTERIOR BALLISTIC CYCLE OF A REQENERATIVE L I Q U I DPROPELLANT aun

The

second

function

is

the

requirement

for

the

propellant to be atomized as it enters the combustion chamber as shown in Figure

6.

Interior

Ballistic

Cycle

of

Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun.

"This is accomplished by

using a set of injector orifices at the same location in the combustion chamber. "I5 Both functions are performed by the injection taking

differential area piston, with propellant

place through orifices drilled through the face of the piston as shown in Figure 5. The key is the amount of propellant

available for combustion at any time is controlled by the injection process. In general the process of a RLPG can be modeled when the two functions are combined for the hydraulic response of the regenerative piston and the LP reservoir. This action is based on the smaller area on the unburned propellant side of the piston head than on the larger area on the combustion side of the piston. This differential is the

corner stone to the injection and atomization of the LP in the combustion process.

"J. Mandzy, P.G. Cushman and T. Magoon, "Liquid Propellant Technology Final Report," ADB097031 (Pittsfield, MA: General Electric Ordnance Systems Division, October 1985), 6.

Part III
A Review o f Past L i q u i d

P r o o e l l a n t Develo~ments L i q u i d p r o p e l l a n t r e s e a r c h i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s began s h o r t l y a f t e r World War i l ended. basic types of LPG propulsion Between 1946-1950, concepts were three being

investigated:

d i r e c t i n j e c t i o n , b o t h e x t e r n a l l y powered and The f i r s t was an e x t e r n a l l y

r e g e n e r a t i v e , and b u l k loaded.''

powered i n j e c t i o n d e v i c e which achieved v e l o c i t i e s up t o 7000 f t / s . 17 Military application was considered but was

determined n o t t o be f e a s i b l e due t o t h e need f o r an e x t e r n a l power source. The second approach being researched was

experiments i n bu 1 k loaded LPG w i t h encapsu l'ated p r o p e l 1 a n t s . V e l o c i t i e s i n t h e range o f 11,300 f t / s were reported.'' Last,

a r e g e n e r a t i v e i n j e c t o r study was completed and an e f f o r t t o develop a 3 7 m RLPG was i n i t i a t e d From 1950 t o BLLPG and RLPG 1957, work was conducted on b o t h t h e Several 90mn tank guns were

concepts. i n two

eventually tested

separate programs w i t h h y d r a z i d e

mono propellant^.^^

Problems developed w i t h v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e

16walter F. Morrison, Paul Q. Baer, M e l v l n J. Bulman and John Mandzy, "The I n t e r i o r B a l l i s t i c s o f Regenerative L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Quns," ADA190020 (Aberdeen P r o v i n g Ground, MD: U.S. Army B a l l i s t i c Research Laboratory, October 1987), 1.

alter F. Morrison, John D, Knapton and M e l v i n J. Bu lman " L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Guns," ADA188575 (Aberdeen P r o v i n g Ground, MD: U.S. Army B a l l i s t i c Research Laboratory, October 19871, 3.
I8lbid. "lbid.

b u l k loaded f i r i n g s which exceeded t h a t o f c o n v e n t i o n a l guns. " F o l l o w i n g t h e end o f t h e Korean C o n f l i c t , r e s e a r c h began t o d i m i n i s h , i n t e r e s t i n LPG

and by 1957, w i t h t h e i n c r e a s i n g

emphasis on r o c k e t s and m i s s i l e s , b o t h t a c t i c a l and s t r a t e g i c . n e a r l y a l l LPG r e s e a r c h had stopped. s.20 "The r i s i n g i n t e r e s t i n r o c k e t s i n t h e l a t e 1950s and t h e general d e c l i n e o f gun p r o p u l s i o n r e s e a r c h i n t h e Army n e a r l y ended a1 1 s u p p o r t o f t h e LP program i n t o the early

1960s."~' "By t h e l a t e 1960s. t h e Vietnam War experience had demonstrated the continued need for gun systems in a1 1

applications: a i r t o a i r ,

a i r defense,

f i r e support,

e t c . -22

The Navy t o o k t h e l e a d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d and began t h e f i r s t major r e s e a r c h and development e f f o r t s i n LP s i n c e 1957. The

Naval Weapons Center, China Cake, began s t u d i e s on a LP cannon for air defense.
A t

the

same

time,

the of

Naval

Ordnance

Station,

I n d i a n Head,

began development

a new c l a s s o f
amnonium n i t r a t e

l i q u i d monopropellants
(HAN).'

based on h y d r o x y l

These Navy programs were t h e f o u n d a t i o n which caused

"lbid. 2 1 ~ o r r i s o n",L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t s f o r Gun A p p l i c a t i o n s , " 22~orrison" , L i q u i d Propel l a n t Guns," 23ibid. 14.

4.

a renewed

interest throughout

the Department

of

Defense

research comnunity in the potential of LP. LPG research and development in the 1970s can be broken down into two categories: bulk loading and regenerative

injection. "Prior to 1976, bulk loading was the primary focus of the development effort, and from 1978 to the present, the focus has shifted almost exclusively to regenerative

injection. "24

Again the Navy lead the Department of Defense The

research comnunity in LP development during the period. Navy's BLLPG program was focused toward a

large caliber

shipboard gun and a small caliber air defense gun system. 25 The Navy successfully demonstrated a small caliber 37mm air defense gun but the " ball istic control required for safety at high rates of fire demonstrated ballistic variability which was still large compared to conventional guns of the same caliber. "26 There were never any "large caliber firings

conducted in con junction with this program, due to problems in controlling fixture. s.21 high chamber variability in the 37mn test

141bid. 2S~orrison, "Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications," 14. 2s~or ir son, "Liquid Prope 1 1 ant Guns, " 4. "lbid.
50

The Defense Advanced Research P r o j e c t s Agency (DARPA) i n i t i a t e d c o n c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h t o "develop a h i g h v e l o c i t y 75mm LPG cannon f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n l i g h t armored v e h i c l e s .
,828

in

o r d e r t o meet program m i l e s t o n e s , t e s t i n g i n t h e program was accelerated evaluations. despite marginal smaller caliber performance

These development e f f o r t s c o n c e n t r a t e d s o l e l y on i t s mechanical simp1 i c . i t y .

t h e b u l k loaded concept due t o "In 1976,

two successive f i r i n g s i n t h e DARPA 75mm program f a i l u r e . d9 As a r e s u l t o f these

resulted i n catastrophic major f a i l u r e s ,

a l l major Department o f Defense LPG programs

i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s were t e r ~ n i n a t e d . ~ ' Research f o r c a n d i d a t e s i n l i q u i d p r o p e l l a n t s and a 30mn cannon development e f f o r t s t i l l c o n t i n u e d on a s m a l l e r scale i n the U.S. Army Ballistic Research L a b o r a t o r y and

General E l e c t r i c Company .3' LPs was developed and

I n 1978 a new fami l y o f HAN-based 30mn RLPG cannon was i n LP by t h e

a rapid f i r e

demonstrated. 32

T h i s caused renewed i n t e r e s t

Army i n t h e e a r l y 1980s and a lO5mn r e g e n e r a t i v e t e s t f i x t u r e

"1 bid.

'Owalter F . M o r r i s o n , Paul O, Baer, M e l v i n J. Bulman and John Mandzy, " I n t e r i o r B a l l i s t i c s o f Regenerative L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Guns," ADA190020 (Aberdeen P r o v i n g Ground, MD: U.S. Army B a l l i s t i c Research L a b o r a t o r y , October 1987), 1. 3'Morrison, " L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t s For Gun A p p l i c a t i o n s , " j21bid. 15.

was

designed,

fabricated

and

tested.

"The

significant

accomplishments in these efforts have been the high degree of ballistic control and excellent reproducability in pressure and muzzle developing velocity. "j3 and testing a This has resulted in the a Army self

155mn RLPG system

for

propelled howitzer. Sumnarv The objective of this section was to review the major historical developments within the United States in the LP program from its beginning following World War present.
II

to the in

This review identified four distinct periods

which LP was a possible concept as a gun propulsion system on combat vehicles. Initially development, efforts a there was a period of technology and

feasibility the

demonstration of

conducted,

toward

development

prototype

hardware.

Numerous gun fixtures were developed and fired but none were fielded. The second period, 1950 to 1957, saw support for the program fade by the mid-1950s and all work had been abandoned by 1960. Three factors contributed to that: slow technical

progress due to the complexities of the interior ball istics of the systems, reduced interest in new gun systems after the Korean conflict and the shift from guns to rockets.

SfMorrison, "Liquid Propellant Guns," 5. 52

In the third period, LP efforts were revived but focused solely on the bulk mechanical simplicity. loaded concept because of its

The greatest test fixture failures in

the program occurred in 1976 which resulted in a shift to RLPQs

.
The fourth period has taken the DOD from the late

1970s to the present which has demonstrated several 1 0 5 m test fixtures wliich show great promise. The desire for growth

potential and increased lethality on the battlefield in a RLPQ has been shown in historical trends and is worthy of future investigations in the Army.

CHAPTER 4 CONVENTIONAL GUN PROPULSION REVIEW Introduction To establ ish a base1 ine for the major conventional gun propulsion technologies, they be briefly analyzed for their advantages and disadvantages. The review includes current and

advanced technologies under development within the Department of Defense (DOD) research and development comnunity. The goal is to identify those concepts which show growth potential in the near-term future as a possible improvement to the Solid Propellant Gun (SPQ). "SPQs have successfully armed tanks

mainly because progressive improvements made them capable of defeating the increasingly heavy armor of the opposing tanks, which represent their most demanding targets.

"'

One of the

methods of increasing the penetration capability of any tank cannon without increasing the size of the gun or introducing a new technology is through increasing the energy output of the propellant. an An objective of this improved propellant is velocity which means increased weapon

increased muzzle

'R. M. Ogorkiewicz, "Future Tank Guns, Part I : Sol id and Liquid Propellant Guns," International Defense Review. Vo1.24, No. 9/1991: 1377.
54

system lethality and modern battlefield.

increased crew survivability on the

The maximum velocity that can be achieved

is determined by the type of propellant and the mass of the projectile used in a gun system. Therefore, the limiting

factors become the amount of propellant that can be loaded in the gun and the maximum pressure the gun can withstand. The

weight of propellant depends on the maximum loading density. The chapter addresses several propellant concepts which

attempt to increase the loading density. broken down into conventional

The chapter will be and advanced

propulsion

conventional propulsion. Part I Conventional P r o ~ u l s i o n

I.

Conventional

Propulsion

chemical energy

propulsion

technology: o o o o o o Multiperforation Granular Propellants Slotted Stick Propellants Low Vulnerability Ammunition (LOVA) Propellants Deterred Propellants Modular Charges Multiplex Charges

A.

Multiperforation Granular Propellants: Increasing the perforations from 1 or 7 to 19 or 37

perforation

grains

creates

relatively

larger

burning

surface.

Since

the propellant

gas

generation

rate

is

proportional to the burning area, it may be possible to get higher relative pressures cycle.
1.

late in the interior ballistic

Advantage: Higher relative pressures may result in higher muzz

velocities. 2.

(It gets more usable propellant in the breech

Disadvantages: a. Propellant grains are physically larger than those

in a

standard charge, therefore, it may be difficult to

achieve required loading density.

b.

There is a possible increase in muzzle blast which

is a survivability issue related to the combat system. c. The higher projectile velocities could result in

increased gun tube wear reducing the expected 1 ife of the cannon.

B.

Slotted Stick Propellants: The propel lant is in bundle packs which are more dense

than randomly

loaded granular propellant,

resulting

in a

larger mass being channels presented

loaded into the chamber. by bundled stick

The natural

propellant allow the

'paul G. Baer, Catherine F. Banz, lngo W. May and Walter F. Morrison, "A Propulsion System Comparison Study For the 120mn Anti-Armor Cannon," ADA187175 (Aberdeen Proving Qround, MD: U.S. Army Ball istic Research Laboratory, August l987), 1314.

length of the chamber t o be almost immediately bathed

in

igniter and early combustion gases, promoting rapid flame spread because of the good pressure equilibration. 3
1.

Advantages: a. The diminished resistance to gas flow reduces the

propensity for pressure waves and renders the potential for simplified and less expensive charge designs. b. the The increased loading density permits the use of

larger charge weight needed with cooler, less energetic, These propellants result in decreased gun tube

propellants.

wear, muzzle flash and blast.

2.

Disadvantage: Since the sticks tend to remain in the chamber during

the ballistic cycle, the propellant gases are forced to flow over the origin of rifling and erosion could possibly occur.

C.

LOVA Propellants: The general characteristics of LOVA propellants

consist of nitramine dispersed

in an inert binder matrix.

These low vulnerability properties are a result of a higher threshold for thermal ignition, lower burning rate at lower

'~rederick W. Robbins and Albert W. Horat, "Detailed Characterization of the Interior Ballistics of Slotted Stick Propellant." ADA147499 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, September 1984), 9-11.

pressures,

and improved mechanical properties compared to

conventional nitrocellulose based propellants. 4

1.

Advantage: There is a reduction of vulnerabi 1 ity of a fire or

explosion with on-board propellant as a result of the higher flame temperature of ignition.
2.

Disadvantage: There are flash and erosion problems with gun tubes

that use these propellants.

D.

Deterred Propellants: Standard propellants are treated to infuse a slow

burn rate.

This results in a slower burn rate in the early

portion of the interior ball istic cycle until the deterred layer is depleted. Then there is a more rapid burn in the a more constant

later portion of the cycle to approach pressure operation. 5

1.

Advantage: With a constant pressure operation during the interior

ballistics cycle, higher muzzle velocities may be achievable. The loading density is not impacted though a larger charge

%.s. Kirshenbaum, L. Avrami and 8 . Strauss, "Sensitivity Characterization of Low Vulnerability (LOVA) Propellants," ADA126130 (Dover, NJ: U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Comnand, Large Caliber Weapons Systems Laboratory, March 1983), 1.

weight which

is required due to the lower energy of the

deterred layer.

2.

Disadvantage: The production process has not demonstrated the

capability of uniform consistent coating of a multi-perforated propellant grain with a deterrent.

E.

Multiple Charges: This concept is applicable to those situations that

require a variety of velocities from the same cannon and projectile combination. 6
1.

Advantage: Only the required amount of propellant is used.

2.

Disadvantage: There is a potential for case residue when firing at

low pressures and cold temperatures. Also there is a possible non-uniform flame spread and pressure waves associated with multiple charges.

F.

Multiplex Charges: The aim is to obtain a super mass progressivity. burning rate

Progressivity is a

change in a

grain's

'L. E . Harris, A. Grabowsky, J. Shib-Thornton, P. Hui and A. J. Beardell, "Unicharge for Extended Range Ordnance," 25th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPlA PUB 498, Vol. IV, AD8133554 (Huntsville, AL: NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center. October 1988), 455-456.

brought about by the change in the grain's surface as burning proceeds. Progressivity is desired to obtain the maximum

chamber pressure very quickly and maintain it until propellant burnout.

1.

Advantage: It offers the highest performance atta i nab le with

conventional propulsion methods.

2.

Disadvantage: The concept depends on the development of grain

geometries (such as rosette) that have not been manufactured. Part I I Advanced Conventional Pro~ulsion
I I.

Advanced Conventio.na1 Propulsion

- developmental

enhanced

chemical energy propulsion technology: o o o o o Consolidated charge Enhanced Local Combustion Concepts Programmed Fracture Propellant Grain Soft-Launch Concepts Solid Propellant Traveling Charge

A.

Consolidated Charge:
A

consolidated

charge

is

charge

fabricated

essentially from standard gun propellant in a way to produce

a

monolithic

structure

which

retains

many

of

the

characteristics of the initial propellant. To accomplish this

process, t h e p r o p e l l a n t i s f i r s t s o f t e n e d w i t h a s o l v e n t , t h e n pressed into the desired bulk densities.

'

There

is

an The

i n c r e a s e i n d e n s i t y mass by g r a i n c o a t i n g and b i n d i n g .

concept p e r m i t s compacted p r o p e l l a n t t o be p l a c e i n t o t h e gun chamber which increases t h e c h a r g e - t o - p r o j e c t i l e f o r a g i v e n chamber volume. mass r a t i o

I t attempts t o m a i n t a i n h i g h e r

r e a c t i v e pressures l a t e i n b a l l i s t i c c y c l e .
1.

Advantage: Larger charge weights can be packed into a fixed

chamber volume, t h u s h i g h e r muzzle v e l o c i t i e s may be achieved.

2.

Disadvantage: The production and manufacturing technology is

c u r r e n t l y a problem.

Consolidated charges may be i n h e r e n t l y i r r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y than are the

more s u b j e c t t o round-to-round loose granu la r charges.

B.

Enhanced Local Combustion Concepts: The accumulation o f gases w i t h i n t h e p e r f o r a t i o n leads

t o l o c a l l y h i g h pressures and f a s t e r b u r n i n g r a t e s on i n t e r n a l surfaces. as a

I f understood and c o n t r o l l e d ,

i t can be e x p l o i t e d

means

to

achieve

major

increases

in

effective

progressivity.

~cott, "Consolidated P r o p e l l a n t Charge l ~ e o n R. I n v e s t i g a t i o n , Volume I : P r e p a r a t i o n o f Consolidated Charge Increments," AD80433967 (Magna, Utah: Hercules Inc. Aerospace D i v i s i o n , November 1979), 1.
61

1.

Advantages: a. L a r g e r charge weights can be employed w i t h o u t maximum chamber pressures, allowing higher

increasing

performance w i t h t h e same p r o p e l l a n t composition. b. Increases i n basic amnunition stowed l o a d on high

combat v e h i c l e may be p o s s i b l e ,

if

coupled w i t h t h e

loading density o f s t i c k propellant.

2.

Disadvantage: There are problems associated with individual

p r o p e l l a n t g r a i n s w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e h i g h e r i n t e r n a l pressures. The problem i s exacerbated by temperature extremes. temperatures- enhance t h e local burning r a t e e f f e c t .
A

High low

temperature d e t e r i o r a t e s p r o p e l l a n t mechanical and b u r n r a t e properties.

C.

P r o g r a m e d F r a c t u r e P r o p e l l a n t Grain: This i s a technique t o increase p r o g r e s s i v i t y .

A

g i v e n p r o p e l l a n t geometry t h a t may a l r e a d y be p r o g r e s s i v e i s manufactured such t h a t

i t burns on

the

grain exterior

d i s t a n c e , a t which time, t h e g r a i n w i l l f r a c t u r e , programned i n c r e a s e i n t h e a v a i l a b l e s u r f a c e area.

yielding a T h i s leads

a g a i n t o increased pressures i n t h e l a t e r p o r t i o n o f t h e c y c l e

until a specified (programned) burn of the interior ball istic cycle is completed. 8
1.

Advantages: a. A larger charge weight can be employed wi, thout allowing greater

increasing the maximum chamber pressure,

velocities of projectiles at the same pressure or the same velocity at lower pressures. b. Temperature dependence may be exploited, to reduce

sensitivity to conditioning temperatures.

2.

Disadvantages: It requires an average reproducible fracture event

which

is

not possible

if the

elimination of

lot-to-lot

differences in propellant is not achieved.

D.

Soft-Launch Concepts: This concept employs propelling charge materials and

configurations

which

either

significantly

reduce

the

undesirable nature of gas and solid phase inputs to the shell or substantially reaching any interferes with or mitigates them before This

sensitive portion of the projectile.

concept exploits recent advances in high-permeability charge and tailored-ignition methods.

'a. E. Kel ler and A. W. Horst, "The Effects of Propellant Grain Fracture on the Interior Ballistics of Guns," 25th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPlA PUB 498, Vol. IV, AD0133554 (Huntsville, AL: NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center, October 1988), 479-480.

Advantage: This type of charge is attempting to permit firing

which ensures reliable operations of sophisticated projectiles through controlled interior ballistics.

2.

Disadvantage:

A
interior

harsher ballistic

launch cycle

environment might

resulting in a

from

the

result

decreased

'probability of hit of a munition against a specific target.

E.

Solid Propellant Traveling Charge: It entails affixing part the charge to the projectile

itself. Qases are generated at the base of the projecti le and pressure losses from the gun breech to the end of the gun tube are not as great. 9
1.

Advantage: Higher muzzle velocities may be achieved with the

current generation of munitions which charge with them.

2. Disadvantages:

couple a traveling

a.

The

mass

of

the

traveling

charge

must

be

accelerated along with the projectile down the gun tube.

'~aust Denicola, Walter Arnold, Qayle Beavers, Paul Crise and Jane Krolewski, "Tech Base Propulsion Technologies Effects on Weapon Systems Reliability," AD6145132 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, February 1990), 3.

b.

There are severe mechanical, as well as combustion

requirements which must be overcome to make a travel ing charge concept successful. c. dispersion. Sumnary The primary conventional gun propulsion technologies being investigated b y the Army were reviewed in relationship to conventional propulsion and advanced conventional Traveling charges tend to amplify round to round

propulsion.

It gave a brief overview of each concept and the

advantages and disadvantages as currently known b y the author. Higher muzzle velocities might be achievable over time with certain concepts. maturity, coupled The time to develop these concepts to with the associated costs, causes the

researcher and developer to explore new technologies which do look promising in the near future over solid propellant (SP) concepts. Energetic materials, such as liquid propellants, possibly lead to better gun propellants for

which could

improved performance, less erosion and enhanced survivability characteristics are critical to the growth of future tank cannons. The next chapter will begin a discuss on one such

technology, liquid propellants, which increase the energy of propellants. The chapter will focus its discussion on the

logistical impact of liquid propellants as a new propulsion for tank cannons.

CHAPTER 5 LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS Introduction There are major issues in logistics which must be discussed if a new technology possibly to be to be fielded. One method is to draw a comparison between the base-line

vehicle, a MlAl Abrams tank with a Sol id Propellant Gun (SPG), and a MlAl Abrams tank with a Liquid Propellant Gun (LPG) continues. The chapter drawing a direct comparison between

the tow technologies by analyzing the issues in industrial base conversion, production cost savings factors between SPQ and LPG, comnercial production of liquid propellants (LP), transportation factors, manpower resupply requirements and demilitarization and disposal of propellants, Part I Industrial Base Conversion One of the key issues of many logisttcians about the use of LPG for selected weapons is the conversion of the industrial base to produce two types of amnunition, one for the LPG program and one for the SPG program. Therefore, the

primary goal is to use the existing family of projectiles in

their current configurations for LPG by reducing the number of design modifications. Minimizing the number of projectile

modifications for a new weapon system results in lower costs and reduced testing for type classification for use in the field. The LPG program already has two advantages in the type of projectiles required for a LPG. First, a LPG uses caseless Secondly, the

amnunition which only requires the projectile.

current LP designs wi 1 1 permit the use of M830, High Explosive Anti-tank, Multipurpose with Tracer (HEAT-MP-T) and M829A1, Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer (APFSDS-T) rounds used in SPGs with minimal modification to the current generation of projectiles. The M829A1, APFSDS-T kinetic energy (KE) m u n i t i o n uses a subcaliber long rod penetrator stabilized in flight b y fins. The design objective of a KE penetrator "consists of applying sufficient energy at the point of attack to overmatch the capability and strength penetration. of the target material to resist

"'

Today's

generat ion of long rod penetrators

achieves that design objective by traveling at supersonic speeds and massing high concentrations of kinetic energy in a relatively small surface target area. The desired end state

is a perforation resulting in the defeat of the target.

'T.w. Terry, S.R. Jackson, C.E.S. Ryley, B.E. Jones and P.J.H. Wormell, Fishtins Vehicles (London, Great Britain: BPCC Wheatons Ltd., Exeter, 1991). 28.

Another secondary method of achieving a perforation of the target is through the use of chemical energy m u n i t i o n . The M830, HEAT-MP-T chemical energy ammunition employs a high-explosive (HE) warhead to produce lethal effects on targets. When the HEAT-MP-T round impacts a target, the fuze detonates the HE which, in turn, fragments the casing, as we1 1 as producing a highly penetrating jet of metal in the forward direction from the conical, copper liner at the front end of the casing.2 of the target. Again the desired end state is the perforation "It is the residual penetrator and the debris

fragments that are the major contributors to lethal effects inside the target once it has been perforated.

"'

The are

characteristics of

each of

the rounds

listed above

4 sumnarized in Table 1. Amnunition Data.

'~ndrew M. Dietrich, "Warhead Mechan5cs." Ball istic Science and Technolosv Tutorial Terminal Ballistics Division, (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, April 1991), 30.

'u. S. Army. TM 9-2350-264-10-3, Ooerators Manual. Tank, Combat. Full-Tracked: 120-mn Qun. MlAl. (2350-01-087-1092), Qeneral Abrams (Washington D.C.: Department of the Army, 1991), 5-7.

I
COMPLETE ROUND WE I GHT LENGTH PROPELLANT TYPE PROJECTILE TYPE LENGTH

TABLE 1. AMMUNITION DATA M829A1 APFSDS-T 46.2 lb 38.7 in JA-2 M830 HEAT-MP-T
53.4 lb

38.6 in Stick DIGL-RP

APFSDS-T Classified Classified 3000 meters

Multiple Purpose 33.1 in 29.8 lb 2500 meters

WE l GHT
RANGE

Just a slight modification to the M830, HEAT-MP-T and the M829A1 in the form of a handling plug to the rear of the projectile would make the current generation of tank fired munitions interchangeable with the LPG system. The industrial base could continue to provide M830 HEAT-T and M829A1 APFSDS-T to both types of gun systems until the transition was

complete. The manufacturer would only produce projectiles for the LP systems and complete projectiles with case for the solid propellant (SP) systems. with a major amnunition resulting in The normal expense associated effort lower would not be base

redesign a much

experienced,

industrial

conversion cost.

The other critical factor which must be

addressed is propellant production by both in the SPG and the

Part I I Propellant Production Cost Savings Factors One of the advantages to the caseless rounds in the LPG system is that manufacturing only the projectile for a weapon system would greatly reduce cost. In comparison, the

current process of producing a SP round is very expensive and hazardous. It requires detailed and precise coating and The

weight specifications for each grain of propellant.

propellant grains must be a certain size and mass in order to meet firing and performance table standards which predict the flight of a projectile. This process of coating, weighing,

propellant charge packing, and assembly of propellants is very time-consuming. The process is also hazardous, and the

materials are extremely flamnable, requiring strict safety standards. The end result is a sol id one piece SP round which requires precision assembly and high costs. The opposite is required for the LPG system which consists of two major munition components. These two

components, propellant and projectile, are not merged with each other until they are placed together in the breech for combustion process. The LP process eliminates the requirement to assembly a projectile and propellant at the production plant. The projectile is manufactured separate from the

propellant.

Since there are no requirements for assembly of projectile prior to combat operations, the

propellant and

production requirements are less for LP rounds as compared to SP rounds, thus cost is reduced. Part I I I Commercial Production of Liauid Pro~ellants The current LP chosen to be used is called hydroxyl amnonium nitrate (HAN). The "comnercial proprietary process

for the production of HAN involves the electrolysis of nitric acid."' The avai labi 1 ity of natural resources at a low cost With the same relatively "the propellant

made HAN LP even more promising.

small existing comnercial production base,

cost would be equivalent to solids, about $4.00 per pound."' "If the process is scaled to provide to the military the HAN required to produce 100 million pounds of LP yearly, the

estimated cost of the HAN drops 75% of the current commercial price. "I Several Ball istic Research Laboratory (BRL) studies

assume that during a period of mobilization production output might we1 1 excess 20 million pounds a month, which the

halter F. Morrison, "The Application of Liquid Propellant Gun Technology to Field Artillery," (Proceed ings of 20th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, CPlA PUB 370, Vo 1. Il, February 1983). 133.

p o t e n t i a l cost

s a v i n g s c o u l d q u i c k l y surpass

the required

investment t o implement 1 i q u i d p r o p e l l a n t s . '

A comparison o f

LP w i t h t h e c u r r e n t p r o p e l l a n t p r o d u c t i o n c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d with
SP

is

sumnarized would

in

Table indicate costs

2.
a

Estimated definite the

Costs

of

~ r o p e l l a n t s ~ .T h i s reduction in LP

potential current
SP

production

from

p r o d u c t i o n program.

TABLE 2. CHARGE H3A 1 M4A2 H119A2 H203 H30A 1 JA-2

ESTIMATED COSTS O F PROPELLANTS PACKAGED PROPELLANT COST/LB $1 1.40 $7.53 $6.04 $10.01 $13.02 $16.24

Part I V T r a n s ~ o r t a t i o I IIssues Another aspect o f c o s t r e d u c t i o n i s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The safety requirements associated with transporting SPs The pack

r e q u i r e s p e c i a l p a c k i n g m a t e r i a l s and h a n d l i n g standards. key comparison in LP verses

SP

is

the

attempt

to

% a l t e r F. Morrison, John D. Knapton and Quenter Klingenberg, " L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t s f o r Qun A p p l i c a t i o n s . " ADB090195 (Aberdeen P r o v i n g around, MD. January 1985). 34.

9 ~ rir so rn :

35.

equivalent weights of projectiles and propellants per load. SP m u n i t i o n requirements. cannot compete with LP because of packing Amnunition packaging requirements have gone

unchecked to a point that SP m u n i t i o n "packaging represents 50% of the total weight. **lo logistical system by This impacts on the entire

increasing shipping costs, packaging

costs, and transportation requirements. One alternative which can reduce these packaging requirements is the LP program. The current logistical burden associated with SPs is significantly reduced by design with the LP program. propellant base logistical system, the In a LP

munition

transportation requirements can be reduced by more than 30% at the user level, and the ability to sustain operations can be increased by more thin 40%.11 These reductions in

transportation and resupply requirements are a result of the LPs high packing density .I2 Figure 7. Logistical Advantages

of Liquid Propellants demonstrates the projected logistical advantages of liquid propellants on the tactical battlefield

''Maureen M. Stark, "Logistics Analysis of the Impacts of Liquid Propellants on the Amnunition Resupply System," ADB087488L (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, October 1984), 1 1 . " ~ o h nD. Knapton, lrvin C. Stobie, Richard H. Comer and William F. Stansbury, "Survey of Ballistic Data from High Velocity Liquid Propellant Gun Firings," BRL-R-2005 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, August 1977), 26.

from the Corps amnunition storage point (ASP), to the Division amnunition transfer point (ATP), to the Brigade ATP and

finally to the user which needs the Class V for the combat vehicles. Figure

7.

Logistical

Advantages

of

Liquid

Propellants shows the results of a comparison between the LP propellant system to the established solid propellant Class V resupply evaluated system. with LP When as recent the logistical studies on were the

primary

propellant

battlefield, all levels of logistical support, from Corps to the user, experienced reductions in the transportation

requirements and increases in total Class V inventory on hand. These reductions in transportation were the largest gains which were due in part to the ability to transport LPs in bulk. The procedures used in bulk petroleum movements can The key limiting factor in transporting LP packaging

be applied to LPs. SPs is volume.

The inverse is true of LPs.

densities reach weight limits (gross out) before reaching volume limits (cube Table out)
4.

Table ATP

3.

Cube

Verses

Weight a

Comparisons 13

Trai 1er ~omparisons'~is

comparison between SPs and LPs with a base requirement for a fixed number of charges. that a reduction The results support a conclusion be

in transportation requirements would

achieved if LP is hauled in bulk.

The density per unit volume

40% INCREABE I N INVENTORY -22% INOREABE I N lNV6NTORY -18% REDUCTION I N HANDLINO

-16% INCREABE
'

-40% REDUCTION
-10% INCREABE I N INVUNTORY

I N TRANBPORTATION

IN INVENTORY -16% REDUCTION IN T RAN8PORUTION

-17% REDUCTION IN TRANBPORTATION

FIGURE 7. LOGISTICAL ADVANTAGES OF LIQUID PROPELLANTS

. CUBE VERSES WEIGHT COMPARISONS TABLE 3

PROPELLANT NO. OF CHARGES WEIGHT ( L B ) CUBE (CU F T )

Solid-bag SP 15-gal Drum L P 55-gal Drum L P 500-gal Bldr

LP

40 139 169 384

1757 2680 2990 636 1

55 44 47 104

TABLE 4 . ATP TRAILER COMPARISONS

Weight
S&P (STONS )

Total Weight
(STONS)

13.5

of LP is more efficient which would maximize the load hauling transportation assets and increase the available inventory at each ATP or ASP. The end result would be a reduction in the logistical burdens by using LPs. T o further enhance the efficiency of LP from the ATP to the user, the medium and quantity by which LPs are moved determines the total efficiency of the logistical system. If

LP resupply is modeled after a gas station type of operation, in the same manner as petroleum products, then the advantage of LPs is realized and maximized. This means moving LPs in

large bulk until the last possible point in the logistical chain. The current projectile resupply system has proved to be efficient, and can move amnunition with relative ease until actual loading occurs from supply vehicle to tank. The

current SP rounds are packaged in fiber tubes, which are in wooden boxes packed on pallets and banded. Transportation of these boxes of amnunition to the M I A 1 tank from the supply vehicle is currently done by luunon. c h a h . This whole process

of unpacking and loading a tank may take more than an hour. which is an unreasonable amount of time for troops and combat vehicles to spend away from the battlefield. The exposure of

crews, combat vehicles, and resupply vehicles must be reduced. The new depot pack system which is being used on the new generation of supply vehicles permits 49 rounds to be

easily

accessible

i n one wooden

box.

This

has

reduced

r e s u p p l y t i m e w i t h SP amnunition t o vehicle.

about 30 minutes p e r the

I f a resupply

i s o c c u r r i n g on a LP system,

p r i m a r y advantages a r e t h e movement o f p r o p e l l a n t by pumps from s t o r a g e t a n k s on t h e r e s u p p l y v e h i c l e t o s t o r a g e t a n k s on t h e combat v e h i c l e , These projectiles and t h e t r a n s f e r o f o n l y do not have the case or projectiles. propellant

associated w i t h S P amnunition, t h u s t h e y a r e approximately 45% o f t h e normal w e i g h t o f a S P round. being loaded in a combat vehicle T h i s means l e s s w e i g h t by hand. The "total

p r o j e c t i l e / p r o p e l l a n t rearm t i m e o f 3 0 minutes f o r SPs c o u l d be reduced t o e i g h t minutes f o r LPS"" ideal conditions. One drawback needs t o be n o t e d concerning HAN LPs.
HAN LPs a r e v e r y s u s c e p t i b l e t o contamination.

on a MIA1 tank under

"Since t h i s

propellant

i s a water-based

solution,

some f o r e i g n m a t t e r

found i n t h e f i e l d w i l l r e a d i l y d i s s o l v e i n it."'( The most critical point for LPs is the transfer operation.

Contamination can occur when t h e LP i s t r a n s f e r r e d from one supply v e h i c l e vehicle. to another, or i n transition t o a combat

The movement o f L P s t h r o u g h pumps, l i n e s , hoses, and

1 5 ~ . M. VanDerwerken, "High Performance Regenerative L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Qun Study," ADB099639L ( P i t t s f i e l d , PA: General E l e c t r i c Company, Ordnance Systems, February 1 9 8 6 ) , 61.

connections

is

when

LPs

are

the

most

susceptible

to

contamination.

The system must be examined and designed to

reduce the contamination problem. Part V

The demilitarization and disposal of propellants is a major issue, especially in today's society. The SPs disposal

is normally accomplished by a burning process which can be extremely hazardous. The HAN LPs are just the opposite since The "conclusions are that HAN-based into the soil.

they are biodegradable. LPs can potentially

be released directly

without adverse environmental effects. problems in disposal. "I1

This greatly reduces

Systems which have water based

properties are ideal for disposal and are not hazardous.

The objective of this logistical assessment was to discuss some key areas which effect costs savings that the decision maker must address early in the development of a possible new technology for application on a combat vehicle. The LPG factors for sustainment which address the industrial base conversion for production, unit production comparison, costs, rearm

comnercial

production,

transportation

%err ison, "The Appl ication of Liquid Propel lant Gun Technology to Field Artillery," 133.
79

requirements and demilitarization and disposal of propellants have shown major cost reductions associated with each of them when compared t o the SPQ program. These factors are critical elements in Operations and Sustainment funding which must be addressed over the life cycle of the LPG, especially with a Department of Defense (DOD) trend which projects a reduction
'

in funding in the near future.

The next chapter will assess

the tactical impact of LPs on the modern combat vehicle.

CHAPTER 6 COMBAT VEHICLE ANALYSIS Introduction The objective of Chapter 6 is to address those aspects of the Liquid Propellant Gun (LPQ) technical design that impact on it acceptance. within the LPG program There are technical advancements which must be analyzed to ensure a

leap ahead over the current technology being used by the soldier on the battlefield. The MIA1 Abrams tank will still

be the baseline vehicle used in this discussion since it is the current technology being used by the Army. A tank has three major requirements which it must meet in order to achieve mission success against today's THREAT. They are mobility, firepower and survivability. These

requirements can be traced from the first tank development during World War I to the present MlAl Abrams main battle tank.

Survivability The current MlAl tank's interior can be reconfigured to accomnodate a liquid propellant (LP) system. There are

many advantages associated with the redesign and placement of the projectiles and the propellant in the vehicle. The small

projectiles in a LPG system will permit storage of 56 rounds on-board verses 40 rounds on a sol id propel lant (SP) system1 (Table 5. Comparison of MlAl Solid Propellant Verses Liquid Propel 1 ant Vehicle systems2).

' J . M. VanDerwerken, "High Performance Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun Study," AOB099639 (Pittsfield, PA: General Electric Company, Ordnance Systems, February 1986), 78.
'John Mandzy, "High Performance Regenerative LP Tank Gun," Contract Number DAAA 15-87-C-0097 (Pittsfield, MA: General Electric Company, Defense Systems Division, June 1988). 3-23.

R lS O N

& MlAl
nlAf

SOL l D PROPELLANT

VERSES LIQUID PROPELLANT VEHICLE SYSTEMS MlAl-LP

Gun Performance Muzz 1 e Velocity Stowed Rounds Ready Rounds (Automated) Rate o f F i r e
KE

I
I1

40

I
I

56

17 (Hand Loaded)

48

8 Rds/Min 8 Rds/Min

15 Rds/Min 13 Rds/Min

C (HEAT)
V e h i c l e Weight Stowed Load

62.2 M e t r i c Tons

58.2 M e t r i c Tons

(68.9 Tons)

(64.5

Tons)

The LPG system w i l l p e r m i t t h e crew t o be reduced t o t h r e e men, and w i l l i n t r o d u c e an a u t o l o a d e r which has access t o 48 rounds as shown i n Table 5. Comparison o f
M l A l Sol i d

P r o p e l l a n t Verses L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t V e h i c l e Systems. system r e q u i r e s a l o a d e r who has access t o o n l y

The SP

17 rounds

b e f o r e he must t r a n s f e r f r o m t h e h u l l s t o r a g e r a c k and t h e t a n k comnander's semi-ready r a c k . The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f rounds

and time to reload are key factors in both systems which were examined in Chapter 5. The LPG system showed a saving in

rearmhefit time from 30 minutes in a SPG system verses 8 minutes with a LPG system. The goal to further reduce the

crew's vulnerability to the THREAT is achieve in a LPG. There are drawbacks with the LPG, with the autoloader, over a manual SPQ system for loading and firing projectiles. The autoloader must be proven reliable and if failure occurs, a system has to be available to load rounds manually. This

manual mode on the LP system must be as efficient as the manual mode on the MlA1-SP system. autoloader The other aspect of an

is the safety of the crew around "fast-moving

machinery within a manned c~mpartment"~ A proven degree of safety must' be established prior to the use of the autoloader. The other major advantage in a LPG is the handling and storage requirements of the propellant. The propellant offers unique abilities since it is a fluid and can assume any shape for storage on the vehicle. "As a result, monopropellants

require only about 75% of the volume of solid propellants containing the same amount of energy. space behind the ammunition

"'

This permits all

bustle rack in the hull to be

'R.M. Ogorkiewiet, "Future Tank Guns, Part 1: Solid and Liquid Propellant Guns, " International Defense Review, Vol. 23, No. 12/1990: 1379.

utilized.

The MlA1-LP by design can store "850 1 itersw5 of

LP which is designed with a 30% excess above its basic load of projectiles. Design of these LPtanks if damaged must prevent If

any LP from spilling directly into the crew compartment.

heat is associated with the spillage, a possibility exists that noxious fumes could develop with HAN LPs. The HAN LP's

exhibit relatively "low shock sensitivity and low flamnability and are very difficult to ignite at atmospheric pr&sure."' HAN LP wi 1 1 not release the majority of its stored energy unless it is placed under high pressure in a chamber.' This

type of LP greatly enhances crew survivability and reduces vehicle vulnerability. Also associated with reduced vulnerability are the limits placed systems. on muzzle flash and blast found with gun

Muzzle flash gives a direct signature to the enemy, "Secondary muzzle

and increases a vehicle's vulnerability.

flash and blast result from the ignition of combustible gases that are products of propellant combustion, a situation not

'~aureen M. Stark, "Logistics Analysis of the Impacts of Liquid Propellants on the Amnunition Resupply System," ADB087488L (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, October 1984), 126.

' N . Klein, "Liquid Propellants for Use in Guns A Review," BRL-TR-2641 (Aberdeen Proving Qround. MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, February 1985), 28.

present balanced,

in

LPs. muzzle

"'

HAN

LPs

are

stoichiometric, be fuel rich

oxygen (the

exhaust

would

not

equilibrium products of solid propellants are 40% combustibles by weight whereas the analogous figure for HAN-based LPs is less than 1%)' combustible The reduction in flame temperature and products, again reduces vulnerability and

increases the survivability of the vehicle. The explosion of on-board stowed ' amnuni t ion is the single major cause which destroys combat vehicles and kills crews. The "use of SPs has always resulted in reduced safety

and increased system vulnerability, primarily due to high propellant flamnability. "I0 propellant which and has The HAN LP offers a new type of unique characteristics by reducing enabling

vulnerability

also reduces vulnerability

storage from the crew component.

These factors increase

combat staying power of military vehicles.

)Walter F. Morrison, John D. Knapton and Guenter Klingenberg, "Liquid Propellants for Qun Applications," ADB090195 (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, January 1985). 33. 'O~alter F. Morrison, "The Appl icat ion of Liquid Propellant Gun Technology to Field Artillery," (Proceedings of 20th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, CPlA, PUB 370, Vol. l l , February 1983), 125.

Part I I
Fire~ower

The addition of an autoloader on MlAl-LP will affect the burst rate or rate of fire of the vehicle. The LP system

will be able to fire at 15 rounds per minute with kinetic energy (KE) penetrator and 13 rounds per minute with chemical energy (CE) round." The MlAl-SP system a rate of fire

of 8 rounds per minute with KE or CE as shown in Table 5. Comparison of MlAl Solid Propellant Verses Liquid Propellant Vehicle Systems. The manual system is more reliable, but the

trade-off with the autoloader offers a higher rate of fire and more rounds to fire, prior to reloading. of fire gives the tactical comnander This increased rate a marked advantage

compared to previous weapon systems firing rates because he can sustain a fight longer and engage multiple targets quicker on the battlefield. If the LP autoloader system should malfunction or a misfire should have occur, the rate of not been studied fire and in an downloading operational

procedures

environment. These are key issues which must be addressed and engineered properly of the in a crew LPQ and system vehicle to in ensure a the

survivability

hostile

environment. Under these types of degraded conditions, manual rates of fire must be addressed early in the development process.

Although the current LPG prototype system does not offer an increase in muzzle velocity over the previous SP system at 1676 m/sec, if the current progress and developments on the LPG system are continued, a 10-14% increase in muzzle velocity can be obtained compared to only a 2-4% increase in sps.12 The growth potential in a two stage LPG is currently The traveling charge concept affords higher

being explored.

muzzle velocities over the current growth development of SPQs. Part I I I Mobi 1 itv Another concern is vehicle weight. vehicle weight of 62.2 metric tons. The MlAl has a

The MlAl-LP with the

increased stowed load and automated feed system will decrease the vehicle weight to 58.2 metric tons as shown in Table 5. Comparison of MIA1 Solid Propellant Verses Liquid Propellant Vehicle Systems. This is a result of a crew reduction from
A reduced crew gives the

four to athree men on the MlA1-LP. armor comnunity the option of

armoring

less

volume.

Therefore,'it would assist in the weight reduction in a MlAlLP

.
Another crucial factor in weight constraints is the The MlA1-LP can still be

air transportability of a vehicle.

transported on the CSA or C5B Galaxy air transport aircraft.

The other factors such as rail movement, heavy equipment transporter or cross country mobility are not degraded in any form with the LPG. Sumarv Chapter

6 has

identified

the

three characteristics

associated with a tank: survivability, firepower and mobility. The LPG system impact in each of those areas was evaluated for their affect on the M I A 1 tank. The outcome of the eva1 uat ion

showed the tank should perform as well or better with the LP than it does with the SP technology.

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOnMENDATlONS Introduction The purpose of this final portion of the thesis is to answer the research question whether the Army should continue development and adopt the Liquid Propellant Gun (LPG), or remain solely with the current projected improvements of the Solid Propellant Gun (SPG) for the future main battle tank. The objective of Chapters 2-6 was to answer that question in a systematic matter which addressed both sides of the issue. This section of the study sumnar i zes the conclusions drawn from each aspect of the liquid propellant gun discussed in this thesis. Part I Conclusions The objective of this thesis was to answer the

research question: Is a liquid propellant gun a viable option for the future main battle tank in the United States Army? To investigate the question, the liquid propellant gun (LPG) was examined in three areas: the historical development of liquid propellants (LP), the logistical impact of LPs and the impact of LP on a combat vehicle. Several major conclusions can be

drawn from this effort which give LPG advantages over the solid propellant gun (SPG). The LPG clearly shows great potential over the SPG.

A LP system could be integrated into today's combat vehicles

and yield positive comparative results. Rates of fire for

combat vehicles can be increased without taxing the logistical system. More of LPs potential could be exploited if the

vehicles were designed t o exploit the LPG system. The primary logistical advantage of LPs is volume

efficiency which leads to benefits with regard to storage, transport, and amnunition processing. Studies indicate a

reduction in man-hours and equipment in the resupply of LPs over SPs. This reduction in man-hours is a function of the If LPs are moved in bulk, the large savings This bulk movement, coupled with stowage capacity of propellant the and

resupply rate. will

be realized. on-board

increased

projectiles in combat vehicles, will reduce the dependence on frequent resupply. LPs criterion add which extreme results flexibility in reduced to vehicle design volume

propellant

requirements and permits remote stowage within the vehicle. The propel lant can, by design, be stowed in remote places away from the fighting compartment of the vehicle, greatly The other

enhancing survivability of the vehicle and crew.

characteristics which add to increased survivability are the

low flammability, low shock sensitivity, and requirements to ignite the propellant. These factors put HAN LPs ahead of any

of the current SPs in reducing the vulnerability of equipment and men. The current production base and availability of raw materials for LPs is already established. The cost reduction over SPs would be the result of a simpler operation which does not require a high degree of precision and safety levels. Projected production costs could easily be half or less of SPs. A possible increase in cost would be handling and

shipping procedures to prevent contamination of the LP. The demilitarization and disposal technique of burning SPs is becoming less desirable and is not a safe process. Since HAN LPs are nontoxic and biodegradable, society may be more willing to accept the disposal methods of non-burning. HAN LPs will present no future hazards when it is no longer required. The advantages of LPs for today's and future combat vehicles give the tactical comnander an edge needed to meet the THREAT nations. The rising cost of new technology and new weapons has forced the military comnunity to be better

stewards of the tax payer's money, and get the most b a n g 40%
the b u c h .

If the Army is searching for a new and better cost

effective new and better system in the field of propulsion, the liquid propellant gun system is a possible solution.

Part I I Recornendation Work on HAN LPs and LPG should not be discontinued at this point. handling, addressed Current research must continue to ensure safety, storage, in the transportation, LP program over and vulnerability full range are of

the

environmental conditions encountered in military use. The design of the regenerative mechanism for a LPG must meet the reliability, maintainability, and availability requirements of today's military equipment. The high pressure seals, mechanical parts, igniter issue, and projectile loading must all be addressed to reduce failure at any critical point on the battlefield. Future combat vehicles need to be designed around the LPG to maximize the benefits of LPs. LP wi 1 1 make combat

vehicles more survivable and lethal on the modern battlefield. Sumnarv The projected increase in vehicle lethality and crew survivability enhancements afforded in a liquid propellant gun can not be overlooked. The Army has reached a point
in

technology development where the old solid propellant gun has reached limits in which the growth potential is very small at great costs to the Department of Defense. gun propulsion technology The need for a new

which can meet the needs of the

Armor force in the year 2000 is at a critical decision point. A liquid propellant gun i s a viable option for the future of the Army's main battle tank.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Gutteridge, William and Trevor Taylor, ed. The Dangers of New Weaoon Svstems. New York: St. Martins's Press, 1983. Hunnicutt, R. P. Sherman: A Historv of the American Medium Tank. Novato, California: Presidio Press, 1978. ~unnicutt, R. P. Patton: A Historv of the American Main Battle Tank. Novato, California: Presidio Press, 1984. Hunnicutt, R. P. Abrams: A Historv of the American Main Battle Tank. Novato, California: Presidio Press, 1990. Hunnicutt, R. P. Firepower: A Historv of the American Heavy Tank. Novato, California: Presidio Press, 1988. Legget, Glenn; Meade, C. David; Kramer, Me1 inda G. Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers: Tenth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1988. Macksey, Kenneth, and John H. Batchelor. Tank: A Historv of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle. New York: Ballantine Books, 1971. Macksey Kenneth. Technolonv in War: The lmoact of Science on Weaoon Develooment and Modern Battle. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1986. Neufeldt, Victoria, ed. Webster's New World Dictionarv of American English. New York: Webster's New World Dictionaries, 1988. Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. Armoured Forces: A Historv of Armoured Forces and Their Vehicles. New York: Arco Publishing Company, Inc., 1970. Sabin, William A. The G r e w Reference Manual. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985. New York:

Simpkin, Richard. Tank Warfare: An A n a l y s i s o f S o v i e t and NATO Tank Philosoohy. London: Brassey's P u b l i s h e r s L i m i t e d , 1979. to S ~ Simpkin, Richard. A n t i t a n k : An Airmechanized R ~ S D O ~ Armored T h r e a t s i n t h e 90s. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1982. Simpkin, Richard. Human F a c t o r s i n Mechanized Warfare. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press I n c . , 1983. Simpkin, Richard. Race t o t h e S w i f t : Thoughts on T w e n t v - F i r s t C e n t u r v Warfare. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press I n c . , 1985.
S.R. Jackson, C.E.S. Ryley, B.E. Jones and T e r r y , T.W., P . J . H. Wormell, F i a h t i n a V e h i c l e s . London: BPCC Wheatons L t d . , E x e t e r , 1991.

A Manual f o r W r i t e r s o f Term Paoers. Turabian, Kate L. Theses.and D i s s e r t a t i o n s . Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1982. Zaloga, Steven J. and James W. Loop. Modern American Armor. H a r r i s b u r g , Pennsylvania: Arms and Armour Press, 1982. Zaloga, s t e v e n J. and Michael Green. Tank A t t a c k A Primer o f Modern Tank Warfare. Osceola, W I : Motorbooks l n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s and Wholesalers, 1991. Periodicals Blackburn, Linwood E. "The Two Man Tank: An Idea Whose Time has Come," A r m o r . The Magazine o f M o b i l e Warfare. X X V l (January-February 1987): 40-41. Brown, R . Mark. "Human F a c t o r s Chal lenges i n Armored Design, " Armor. The Magazine o f M o b i l e Warfare,XCVlI (SeptemberOctober 1988): 24-25. F l e t c h e r , Robin. " C r e a t i n g t h e T u r r e t l e s s Tank," Technoloav. 6/87: 140-146. Furlong, R.D.M., Howitzers," 12/1983. Military

"Liquid Propellants f o r Future S P G I n t e r n a t i o n a l Defense Review, V o l .

16, No.

H a l b e r t , G e r a l d A. "Elements o f Tank Design," Armor, The Magazine o f M o b i l e Warfare. XCll (July-August 1987): 3442.

Howard, W i l l i a m L. " T e c h n i c a l I n t e l l i g e n c e and Tank Design, A r m o r . The Magazine o f M o b i l e W a r f a r e . XClV ( J a n u a r y F e b r u a r y 1985): 24-29.

8.

Kennedy, D o n a l d R. "The Search f o r S a f e r Combat V e h i c l e s : How Close Are W e G e t t i n g , " Armor. The Magazine o f M o b i l e Warfare, XCVI I (September-October 1988): 39-41. K o e r n e r , G r a i g and M i c h a e l O'Conner. "The H e a v i l y Armored Gun-Armed M a i n B a t t l e Tank I s N o t O p t i m i z e d F o r Mechanized Warfare," Armor, The Magazine o f M o b i l e W a r f a r e . XCV (May-June 1986): 9-16. M a l l o r y . M.D., "The NAVAIR SYSCOM L i q u i d B i o p r o p e l l a n t Gun," N a t i o n a l Defense, V o l . LXIX, No. 401, O c t o b e r 1984: 1621. "New Trends i n Armoured F i g h t i n g M i l l e r , Stephen W. V e h i c l e s , " M i l i t a r y T e c h n o l o q v L XV ( J u l y 1991): 10-16. N i t k o w s k i , S t e v e n R. "The R e t u r n o f t h e Gunned Tank Destroyer," Armor. The Magazine o f M o b i l e Warfare, X C V l l l ( M a r c h - A p r i l 1989): 21-25. O g o r k i e w i c z , R. M. " F u t u r e Tank Guns, P a r t I : S o l i d and L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Guns," I n t e r n a t i o n a l Defense Review. V o l . 23, No. 12/1990: 1377-1380. O g o r k i e w i c z , R . M. "Successors o f T o d a y ' s Tanks," I n t e r n a t i o n a l Defense Review. Vo1.24, No. 9/1991: 971. 965-

Pengellay, Rupert. "Liquid Propellant A r t i l l e r y Proving B e g i n s i n t h e U.S.," I n t e r n a t i o n a l Defense Review, V o l . 22, No. 1082-1083. Pignato, Nicola. Todav, 9/10: "Tanks o f t h e F o u r t h Generation,' 312-315. Defence

Q u i n z i o . P a t r i z i o F l a v i o and A l f o n s o De S a l v a . "Armoured v e h i c l e s : What's i n S t o r e ? , " Defence Todav, 9/10: 305311. Ringwood, T e r r e n c e . " ~ x t e n d e dRange f o r 155mn A r t i l l e r y , " Armv Research D e v e l o ~ m e n A t c a u i s i t i o n . PB 70-92-2 (MarchA p r i l 1992): 25-27. Simpkin, R i c h a r d . "Task C o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r F i g h t i n g V e h i c l e s , " Armor, The Magazine o f M o b i l e W a r f a r e . XCl l (NovemberDecember 1983): 13-18.

Simpkin, Richard. "Room a t t h e Top," Armor. The Magazine o f M o b i l e Warfare. XClV (January-February 1985): 18-23.
Witt,

Wolfram and K a r l h e i n z R e i n e l t , " L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Charges f o r Gun and M o r t a r Amnunition," I n t e r n a t i o n a l Defense Review, Vol. 14, No. 1/1981: 64-66.

"The R e t u r n o f t h e Gunner Tank Witkowski. Steven R. ~ e s t r o y e r , " Armor. The Maaazine o f M o b i l e Warfare. X C V ( M a r c h - A p r i l 1989): 21-25. Woznik, John C. "Developing A Tank Autoloader," Armor The Maaazine o f M o b i l e Warfare, X C V l l l (September-October 1989): 11-15.

Ashley, Eugene, " L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t T r a v e l i n g Charge Gun Concept," ADB010910, General E l e c t r i c Co., B u r l i n g t o n , VT, February 1976. Ashley, Eugene, " L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t T r a v e l i n g Charge Gun Concept," ADA033971, General E l e c t r i c Co., B u r l i n g t o n , VT, November 1976. Baer, Paul G., l ngo W. May and W a l t e r F. M o r r i s o n , "Comparison o f P r e d i c t e d Muzzle For Sol i d and Regenerative L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Quns," ADA187174, U.S. Army B a l l i s t i c Research L a b o r a t o r y , Aberdeen P r o v i n g Ground, M D , August 1987. Baer, Paul G., C a t h e r i n e F. Banz, lngo W . May and W a l t e r F . Morrsion, "A P r o p u l s i o n System Comparison Study f o r t h e 120mn Anti-Armor Cannon," ADA187175, U.S. Army B a l l i s t i c Research L a b o r a t o r y , August 1987.

Bonanno, Michael A. and Joseph J. Rocchio, "The Development o f a H i g h Impetus Lova P r o t o t y p e P r o p e l l a n t f o r t h e 105 mn M833 C a r t r i d g e System," ADB133554, 2 5 t h JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPIA, Pub. 498, V o l . I V . , p. 399, H u n t s v i l l e , AL, October 1988. Chiu, A.S., A.J. B r a c u t i , and P. Hui, "Bulk T e s t i n g o f NonNewtonian L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t s , " ADB135880, U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and E n g i n e e r i n g Center, Dover, NJ, September 1983. C o f f e e , Terence P., G l o r i a P. Wren and W a l t e r F. M o r r i s o n , "A Comparison Between Experiment and S i m u l a t i o n f o r Concept VIC Regenerative L i q u i d P r o p e l l a n t Quns, I . 30mn," ADA218556, U.S. Army B a l l i s t i c Research L a b o r a t o r y , Aberdeen P r o v i n g Ground, MD, December 1989.

Coffee, Terence P., Gloria P. Wren and Walter F. Morrison, "A Comparison Between Experiment and Simulation for Concept VIC Regenerative Liquid Propellant Guns, I I . 105mn, ADA222588, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, April 1989.
9.

Comer, Richard H. and Walter F. Morrison, Jr., "Tri-Service Plan for Liquid Propellant Technology for Gun Applications," ADB055274, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdaen Proving Ground, MD, September 1980. Cruice, William J., "Reclassification and Grease Compatibility Studies for Liquid Propellants," ADA175188, Report for Contract DRAED-CR-86020, Hazards Research Corporation, Rockaway, NY, December 1986: Cruice, William J., "Classification of Liquid Gun Propellants and Raw Materials for Transportation and Storage, ADA100729, Report for Contract DAAKll-78-C-0024, Hazards Research Corporation, Rockaway, NY, May 1981. Denicola, Faust, Walter Arnold, Qayle Beavers. Paul Crise, and Jane Krolewski, "Tech Base Propulsion Technologies Effects on Weapons System Reliability," ADB145132L, Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, February 1990. Frankle, J.M., "Consolidated Charges for Large-Caliber Guns," ADB104663, Report for C o n t r a c t N 0 0 0 2 4 - 8 5 - C - 5 3 0 1 , The John Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, June 1986. Fortino, Frank E. "Improved Ballistics for 30mn Ammunition Using Consolidated Charges," ADB016113, U.S. Army Armament Comnand, Munitions Development and Engineering Directorate, Philadelphia, PA. September 1976. Graham, A.R., "The Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun," Proceedings of 20th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, CPlA Pub 370, Vol. Ill, p. 187, February 1983. Harris, L.E., A. Grabowsky, J. Shib-Thornton, P. Hui and A.J. Beardell, "Unicharge for Extended Range Ordnance," ADB1335544, 25th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPlA Pub 498, Vol. IV, p. 455, Huntsville, AL, October 1988. Keiler, George E., "The Effect of Propellant Composition on Secondary Muzzle Blast Overpressure," ADA127277, U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Comnand, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, April 1983.

Keller, George E., "The Competition Between Tube Heating and Muzzle Velocity in Stick Propellant Gun Charges," ADA149311, U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Center, Ballistic Research Laboratory, MD. July 1984. Keller, Q.E. and A.W. Horst, "The Effects of Propellant Grain Fracture on the Interior Ballistics of Guns," ADB1335544, 25th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPIA Pub 498, Vol IV, p. 479, Huntsville, AL, October 1988.

Kirshenbaum, M. S., L. Avrami and B. Strauss, Sensitivity Characterization of Low Vulnerability (LOVA) Propellants," ADA126130, U.S. Army Armament Research and Development C m a n d , Large Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory, Dover, NJ, March 1983. Knapton, John D. and Walter F. Morrison, " Low Temperature Properties of HAN-Based Liquid Propellants," ADB097911, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, November 1985. Lorge, C.G. and E.B. Fisher, "Bonded Stick Propellant Artillery Charges," ADB133554, 25th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPIA Pub 498, Vol. IV, p. 461, Huntsville, AL, October 1988. Mandzy, J., P. Cushman and I. Magoon, "Liquid Propellant Technology Final Report," ADB097031, General Electric Ordnance Systems Division, Pittsfield, MA, October 1985. Mandzy, John and Paul Cushman, "Technical Notes on Concept VI 105mEvaluation, Volume I," ADB119599, General Electric Ordnance Systems Division, Pittsfield, MA, August 1987. Mandzy, John and Paul Cushman, "Technical Notes on Concept VI 1 0 5 m Evaluation, Volume I I," ADB118261, General Electric Ordnance Systems Division, Pittsfield, MA, August 1987. Mandzy, John and Paul Cushman, "Technical Notes on Concept VI 1 0 5 m Evaluation, Volume Ill," ADB118262, General Electric Ordnance Systems Division, Pittsfield, MA, August 1987. Mandzy, John, "High Performance Regenerative LP Tank Gun," Contract Number DAAA 15-87-C-0097, Genepal Electric Company, Defense Systems Division, Pittsfield, MA, June 1988.

Mandzy, J., R. E. Mayer, H. West, I . Magoon, R. Pate, J. Scudiere and J. McCaleb, "155-MM RLPQ Development Program, First Quarterly Report: January-March, 1985," ADB133818, General Electric Tactical Systems Department, Pittsfield, MA, April 1989. Mandzy, J., W. Pasko, H. West, I . Magoon, R. Pate and N. Moskowitz, "155-MM RLPG Development Program, Second Quarterly Report: April-June 1985," ADB140454. General Electric Tactical Systems Department, Pittsfield, MA, December 1989. Mandzy, J., W. Pasko, H. West, I . Magoon, R. Pate, N. Moskowitz and P. Pribus, "155-MM RLPG Development 'Program, Third Quarterly Report: July-September 1985," ADB142393, General Electric Tactical Systems Department, Pittsfield, MA, February 1990. Mandzy, J., W. Pasko, H. West, I . Magoon, R. Pate, P. Pribus, N. Moskowitz and G. Grachis, "155-MM RLPQ Development Program, Fourth Quarterly Report: October-December, 1985," ADB142226, General Electric Tactical Systems Department, Pittsfield, MA, February 1990. May, lngo W. and Arpad A. Juhasz, "Combustion Processes in Consolidated Propellants," ADA101163, U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Comnand, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. May 1981. Moore, Gary L., "Is A Turretless Tank a Viable Option for the United States States Army?" ADA227389, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, June 1990. Morrison, Walter F., "Liquid Propellant Technology Program," ADB056054, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, January 1981.

Morrison, Walter F., John D. Knapton and 0. Klingenberg, "Liquid Propellants for Gun Applications,'' ADB090195, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, January 1985. Morrison, Walter F., John D. Knapton and Melvin J. Bulman, "Liquid Propellant auns," ADA188575, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, MD. October 1987. Morrison, Water F., Paul Q. Baer, Melvin J. Bulman and John Mandzy, "The Interior Ballistics of Regenerative Liquid Propellant Guns," ADA190120, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, MD, October 1987.

Morrison, Walter F. and Gloria P. Wren, " A Model of Liquid Flow and Injection in a Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun," ADA218747, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, MD, December 1989. Olah, Joseph M. and Fred L. Bunn, "The Accuracy of Tank Main Armaments," U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, April 1987. Perrin, D. P., E. Ashley and R. Leightner, "Liquid Propellant Gun Technology Exploratory Development Final Report Volume 7. Rapid-Fire Heat Transfer," ADC010945, General Electric Company, Burlington, VT, June 1977. Robbins, F.W. and A.W. Horat, "Detailed Characterization of the Interior Ballistics of Slotted Stick Propellant," ADA147499, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, September 1984. Robbins, Frederick W. and A1 bert W. Horst, "Continued Stuyd of Stick Propellant Combustion Processes," ADA133004, U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Comnand, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, July 1983. Robbins, F.W. and D.L. Kruczynski, "Calculated Gun Interior Ballistics Effects of In-Depth Burning of VHBR Propellant, ADB1335544, 25th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPlA Pub 498, Vol. IV, p. 529, Huntsville, AL, October 1988. Stark, Maureen M., "Logistics Analysis of the Impacts of Liquid Propellants on the Amnunition Resupply System," ADB087488L, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, October 1984. Stark, Maureen M., "An Analysis of the lmpacts of Transitioning of Liquid Propellant (LP) and a LP Gun System into the Army's Inventory," ADB100559, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, MD, March 1986. Stobie. lrvin C.. John D. K n a ~ t o n ,and Bruce D. Bensinger, " ~ e s t~ e s u l t sfrom a TWO-stage Traveling Charge ~ i q u i d Propellant Gun," ADA224593, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, June 1990. U.S. Army. TM 9-2350-264-10-3. O~erator's Manual. Tank. Combat, Full tracked. 120-MM Gun ABRAMS. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1990.

U.S. Army. FM 63-2. Combat Service Support O~erations Divisions. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1983. U.S. Army. FM 63-2-2. Combat Service Suooort Ooerations, Armored Mechanized & Motorized Divisions. Washington. D.C.: Department of the Army, 1985. VanDerwerken, J. M . , "High Performance Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun Study," ADB099639L. General Electric Company-Ordnance Systems, Pittsfield, MA, Febraury 1986. Watson, Cris, John D. Knapton, Walter F. Morrison and D. Maher, "Ballistic Investigating of a High-Performance Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun," ADB141267, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, February 1990. Wren, Gloria P. and Walter F. Morrison, "Extension of a Model of Liquid Injection in a Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun Based Upon Comparison and Experimental Results. ADA214470, U.S. Army Ballistic Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, December 1989.

,.

Ward, J.R., T.L. Brosseau, R.P. Kaste, I.C. Stobie and B. Bensinger, "Erosivity of Lova Propellants," ADA106081 U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, September 1981.

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1.

Combined Arms Research Library U.S. Army Comnand and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027 Defense Technical Information Center Cameron Station Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Mr. James F. Fox Scientific Advisor to the Comnander, Combined Arms Center Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027 Mr. Dwain H. Skelton U.S. Army Combined Arms Center Combat Developments Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027
COL Wilfred L. Dellva 216 Cynwyd Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

COL Robert A. Qimbert U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Department of Sustainment and Resourcing Operations Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027