In April 2008 CannonArtillery.com caught up with Maj. Corey B. Chassé to discuss how the Army is working to identify and meet new technology requirements for the Field Artillery. Maj. Chassé is the Chief of Current Cannons for Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) Capability Manager, Cannon (TCM-Cannon) at Fort Sill, Okla. Here are his thoughts from a recent e-mail question and answer session with CannonArtillery.com.
About Maj. Corey B. Chassé
Major Chassé is a prior enlisted Marine (1980-84) and an Officer Candidate School (OCS) graduate, Seagirt, New Jersey (NJ), NJ Military Academy, and now serves as an active duty Title 10 National Guard Soldier. In the Army, he has served as the Excalibur Action Officer for TRADOC Systems Manager, Cannon (TSM Cannon) in 1st Battalion, 30th Field Artillery (1-30 FA), at Fort Sill. In the New Jersey Army National Guard, he served as the Operations Officer (Asst. S3) for Headquarters and Headquarters Battery (HHB) 3-112 FA; Commander Battery B, 3-112 FA; and Battalion FSO for Det-1, HHB 3-112 FA, among other assignments. His civilian education consists of: Liberty University, VA, BS (Clinical Psychology), 1992; Fairleigh Dickinson University, NJ, MA (Theoretical Experimental Psychology), 1995; Salsbury University, Toronto, PhD (Cognitive Psychology), 2007.
TCM Cannon is charged with setting the requirements for updating and sustaining existing cannon technology as well as determining requirements for new cannon and munitions systems; what is the process for determining those requirements? What is the biggest challenge in determining requirements?
The process is the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Life Cycle Management framework. I would say the biggest challenge is getting all the right people (teams) together to make the proper decisions that need to be made. That is, we need to be cognizant of which offices take part in the decision-making process. For instance, TCM Cannon will have the responsibility to develop all of the user requirements, but not without the program manager’s (PM), and contractor’s insights. The user has the final say on the requirements, but the PM has the overall responsibility to come up with the material solution for said requirement. For example, I have a user requirement for electric drives for the Paladin’s elevation and traverse. The PM may choose to use the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannon drives (a Spin-Out), or work with industry to look for the best solution at the best cost to the program. Commercial-off-the-shelf technology may be the best alternative as well. Once the PM has a path forward, the user once again sits down with them and their industry partner and weighs the operational impact (how this will affect the Maneuver Commander and the FA Commander on the battlefield) against the PM’s chosen solution to the user requirement.
How have operations in Iraq and Afghanistan impacted the requirements you are working on now for current and new systems?
This is a great question! Knowing first of all that this war has been going on longer than World War II says enough about data collection for my job. I’m constantly asking the FA community for feedback from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Most of the information gained is due to direct questions on user requirements I’m working at the time. For instance, I’ll ask about the number of missions fired cross carriage as opposed to off the front and front corners of the Paladin. I’ll then take that information and contrive a recommendation on the traverse limits of the Paladin Integration Management (PIM) system. We can then look at limiting, or not, the traverse of the turret.
What does this gain us? We can then look at removing the slip ring that allows for 6400 mill traverse and hard-wire the turret to the chassis. The gain is increased transmitted data to and from the turret to the chassis. That allows for communication growth, as well as ephemeris data transfer growth (computers, etc.). So how the OIF/OEF information is used is very critical to the programs here at TCM Cannon. I use the philosophy of “the field knows best what they need,” and then I work hard to accommodate with the best user solution I can.
What would you say has been the biggest impact from the success of M982 Excalibur in combat operations in Iraq during the past year?
Gaining the trust of the Maneuver Commander in his new FA assets is key. When the footage of the first Excalibur shot(s) was publicly released, the impact to the program was seen as positive. The ability to fire off of the M109A6 Paladin as it is currently configured will require some modernizations as total onboard Excalibur ability is still being worked. For more on Excalibur, I defer to the office of TCM Cannon Munitions.
The 155-mm cannon capability seems to have received the most attention, with the Excalibur and M777A2 proving to be powerful upgrades, and the PIM and Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannon coming online in the near future. Is there a plan in place to bring a precision capability and a new tube to the 105-mm realm as well?
Yes to munitions and not right now to a new 105-mm platform. I again defer to TCM Munitions to discuss a new 105-mm munition. As for the M119A2 105-mm digitization – kind of a new taste in platforms for the FA – we are looking at FY13 or so, but that is still to be determined as to what it will look like.
The first NLOS Cannon prototype is scheduled to roll of the line in June this year, and the first PIM prototype will begin tests next year. These systems are considered top priorities at the highest levels of the Army. Why are they so important? What will these systems bring to the fight?
The PIM M109 Family of Vehicles (FOV) sustainment program will be in place to allow the PIM maintainability and sustainability along side the FCS Cannon (NLOS Cannon) as well as its Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) counterpart, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. PIM will ensure this fire support platform continues to meet the needs of the Army's HBCT maneuver commander. Operationally, the PIM will be faster, more maneuverable, more easily sustained and more lethal. The M109A6 PIM FOV uses the existing main armament and recently designed cab structure, while replacing outmoded chassis components with advanced components from the Bradley Combat Systems (see picture insert in my article here: http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/2008/jan_feb_2008/main.asp).
This increases sustainability and commonality across the HBCT. It also incorporates select technologies from the NLOS Cannon, including an automated [modified electric] projectile rammer and modern electric gun drive systems to replace the current hydraulically-operated elevation and azimuth drives that were designed in the early 1960s. Additionally, there will be improved side and belly plate armor for improved survivability of the crew and the platform. In addition to armor improvements, both platforms will be fitted with Blue Force Tracker capability to ensure compatibility with future modernization architectures. This will significantly improve operational awareness on the battlefield. This revolutionary technology will significantly reduce the logistics footprint within the HBCT as well.
CONTACT US