• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

	Director, Operational Test & Evaluation
FY97 Annual Report

WIDE AREA MUNITION (WAM)

	Army ACAT II Program 15,259 systems Total program cost (TY$) $800M Average unit cost (TY$) $52.4K Full-rate production: 3QFY98 Prime Contractor Textron Defense Systems

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION & CONTRIBUTION TO JOINT VISION 2010

The WAM is a smart, autonomous top attack anti-tank/anti-vehicle munition, designed to defeat armored combat vehicles from a standoff distance. The WAM utilizes acoustic and seismic sensors in its ground platform to detect, track, and classify potential targets, and then launches an infrared detecting submunition or "sublet" over the top of the selected target. Once the sublet detects the target, it fires an explosively formed penetrator (EFP) to defeat the target. Target vehicles include, but are not limited to, tanks (e.g., T-72, and T-80), breachers (e.g., KMT-4/5), and lightly armored tracked vehicles (e.g., BMP, 152-mm SPH, and BMD). The variant currently in LRIP is designated as the Hand Emplaced WAM (HE-WAM). It is designed to be carried and emplaced by one person, to have a standoff lethal radius of 100 meters, 360 degrees around, and to be fully autonomous from final arming to target engagement. The WAM, when fielded, will provide considerable precision engagement force for the Army in the Joint Vision 2010 scenario.

The WAM program, due to its funding threshold, was not required to undergo operational test oversight from this office. However, this system does qualify for LFT&E oversight.

The WAM Required Operational Capability (ROC) document was initially prepared as a stand-alone document for the HE-WAM version, with possible future variants proposed as Pre-Planned Product Improvements (P3I). The Army rewrote the ROC as a "Family of WAM" ROC for three variants: hand-emplaced, volcano-delivered, and deep attack WAM. The ROC for the Family of WAM was approved on March 14, 1990. The Family of WAM has since been designated as an ACAT II program. Only the HE-WAM version has been developed, and was approved for LRIP in September 1996 with a full-rate production decision (MS-III) planned for June 1998.

The final LFT activity took place at Yuma Proving Ground in September 1997 when six tactical WAM's with live warheads were fired at passing T-72 Soviet main battle tanks. Although three of the sublets hit their targets, only one caused substantial damage to the target. The three hit locations did not appear to conform to earlier expectations about WAM's aimpoint distribution against tank targets. Therefore, in early 1998, the hitpoints from the live firings at Yuma (and the aimpoints from the camera-equipped WAM shots at all test locations) will be compared to the data base from 1995 captive flight testing to assess the validity of previous aimpoint expectations. Of the three sublets that missed their targets, one fired on a target well beyond its capable engagement range and another fired in the wrong direction. Both of these far misses occurred during gusty wind conditions.

WAM's explosively formed penetrator has demonstrated the ability to perforate substantial areas of potential threat armor targets and to cause loss of mobility or firepower after perforation. Concerns remain about the hitpoint distribution and WAM's ability to function properly under windy conditions. A manufacturing challange for the defense contractor of the warhead is that the EFP liner, which is made of Tantalum, has been known to be difficult to be machined reliably. The DOT&E assessment of WAM's lethality will be submitted to Congress prior to the full-rate production decision, which is expected to occur in June 1998.

DOT&E conducted a review of the differences in WAM warhead performance data between dynamically and statically fired warheads, and determined that for the targets that WAM is intended to defeat, the differences in warhead performance were relatively insignificant. The "dynamic" tests were conducted on live warheads that were both spinning and coning to simulate actual warhead motion, while the "static" tests were conducted on live warheads that were stationary. Tower tests for the full-up systems level LFT&E were therefore conducted statically.