FGR-17 Viper

Last updated
FGR-17 Viper
FGR-17 VIPER.jpg
The FGR-17 VIPER in extended position
TypeAnti-tank/unguided rocket
Place of originUnited States
Service history
In service1983 (canceled same year)
Used byUnited States
WarsCold War
Production history
DesignedLate 1970s
ManufacturerGeneral Dynamics, Pomona Division
Unit costUS$1,310.00 FY 1982–83
Produced1982
Specifications
Mass4 kg
Length111.7 cm ready to fire

Caliber 70 mm
Muzzle velocity 257 m/s
Effective firing range250 m moving – 500 m stationary
Sightspop up M16 type iron sights

The FGR-17 Viper was an American one-man disposable shoulder-fired antitank rocket, which was slated in the 1980s to be the replacement for the M72 LAW, but was canceled shortly after production began because of cost overruns and concerns about safety and capability. [1] [lower-roman 1]

Contents

Program history

Start of the program

The Viper program began in 1972 as a study to replace the M72 LAW. In 1975, a program designated ILAW (Improved Light Antitank Weapon) issued a request for proposals to the defense industry, and in 1976 after studying the various industry proposals, the U.S. Army designated General Dynamics as the prime contractor, changing the ILAW program name to "Viper". The main requirements for the ILAW/Viper program were for a disposable weapon in the same weight and size category as the M72 LAW, but with major improvements in accuracy, safety, and penetration and without a major increase in cost per round over the M72 LAW which it was to replace.

Poor requirements statement

Viper launcher shown collapsed for carrying Viper 002.jpg
Viper launcher shown collapsed for carrying

When the ILAW requirement was first issued, the Army wanted an individual antitank weapon with such a low cost that it would be as common in infantry units as the hand grenade was. All these requirements, which included items contradictory to each other, proved to be too great a hurdle for General Dynamics. This resulted in subsequent issues that led to highly publicized congressional inquires into a classified GAO report which stated that the Viper...barely meets the low end of the Army's requirement.. and furthermore concluded ...Viper did not demonstrate any significant superiority over the M72 LAW.

Over-optimistic statements by the prime contractor

Journalists soon discovered that when the prime contractor was named in 1976 for the Viper program, General Dynamics had told the Army that when mass production for the Viper was reached, the cost of Viper would only be $78.00 per round before inflation. Despite the negative publicity, the Army decided to continue the Viper program and make improvements. In December 1981, General Dynamics was awarded a $14.4 million contract to start production for 1400 Viper rounds.

Safety issues

Shortly after this contract was issued, there were also reports of safety problems with the first production lot during field evaluation tests by the U.S. Army. Test firings had shown Viper rounds to have a safety problem with its fuze system that caused the warhead to explode shortly after launch. One report detailed an accident at Fort Benning, Georgia where a helicopter pallet of Viper rounds was found to be damaged by static electricity.

Scandal and congressional intervention

In February 1982, in a move that took even the strongest supporters of the Army by surprise, the Army issued a second contract worth $83.7 million for 60,000 more Viper rounds. Following the anger caused by the signing of this second contract and because of the earlier GAO report on the Viper, the massive cost overruns, and then the safety concerns revealed in the Army's evaluations, in December 1982 Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) inserted an amendment into the Army's funding bill. This amendment deleted 69% of the Viper funding and further mandated testing of available light antitank weapons which were already in production, including non-U.S. models, with a report due back to Congress in 1983.

End of the program

External images
VIPER brochure 1981
Searchtool.svg Front-Back
Searchtool.svg Section 1
Searchtool.svg Section 2
Searchtool.svg Section 3

About this time, General Dynamics made the decision not to compete in the tests mandated by Congress, because of the Army's demand for a fixed price contract on any future Viper production lots that were to include safety improvements. This meant that after the Army had spent over $250 million on a M72 LAW replacement since 1975, the Viper program was at an end. With General Dynamics's decision to refuse a fixed price contract request, the Army announced in September 1983 that it was canceling all contracts for the FGR-17 Viper. Two months later, the testing mandated by Congress found the Swedish designed AT4 the most suitable off-the-shelf option to replace the M72 LAW. The AT4 did not meet every requirement, but it was the only one to meet most of the requirements. Congress agreed and funded that weapon as the future M72 LAW replacement. [2] [3] [4] The US Marine Corps, who had also intended to purchase Viper, instead adopted a modified version of the Israeli B-300 rocket launcher, the Mk 153 SMAW.

Description

According to General Dynamics' brochure, the FGR-17 was intended to be used by front-line troops as opposed to dedicated anti-tank squads, to give these units a last line of defense backed up by the heavier and more specialized TOW, Dragon and Hellfire missile launchers. These launchers, as opposed to the FGR-17, are far more effective against tanks and can strike from longer distances, but require a specialized anti-tank unit whereas the FGR-17 has the advantage it could be deployed to all soldiers in large quantities. General Dynamics specifically states that the FGR-17 is best deployed in close quarters against enemy flanks and rears, not against front armor. [5]

The launcher of the FGR-17 is made from lightweight fibreglass and resembles many features of its predecessor. It consists of a telescopic tube, much like the M72 LAW it is meant to replace, and the trigger and firing mechanism does not protrude from the launcher itself, with the trigger placed flush against the tube to allow the weapon to be stowed in a backpack more easily. Unlike the M72 LAW, however, the tube does not extend back but forwards from the firing mechanism. Covers at the rear and front of the tube protect the missile from environmental effects such as moisture and dust. Only the rear cover needs to be removed before firing. The FGR-17 uses flip-down aperture sights for targeting, protected by a casing. As the missile tube is extended, the sights are released and flip up. [6] [7]

The missile itself consists of a solid rocket-powered booster [8] and a HEAT warhead. Nine collapsible fins extend in mid-flight to ensure a stable flight path. The missile fires via an impact fuse. After firing, the launcher has to be discarded, it can not be re-used with another missile. The FGR-17 launcher acts as a container for the missile itself and both are meant to be handled as a single unit. The FGR-17, like all weapons of its kind, produces a backblast effect so care for collateral damage must be taken whilst firing.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rocket-propelled grenade</span> Shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon

A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) is a shoulder-fired rocket weapon that launches rockets equipped with an explosive warhead. Most RPGs can be carried by an individual soldier, and are frequently used as anti-tank weapons. These warheads are affixed to a rocket motor which propels the RPG towards the target and they are stabilized in flight with fins. Some types of RPG are reloadable with new rocket-propelled grenades, while others are single-use. RPGs are generally loaded from the front.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recoilless rifle</span> Type of light artillery gun

A recoilless rifle (rifled), recoilless launcher (smoothbore), or simply recoilless gun, sometimes abbreviated to "RR" or "RCL" is a type of lightweight artillery system or man-portable launcher that is designed to eject some form of countermass such as propellant gas from the rear of the weapon at the moment of firing, creating forward thrust that counteracts most of the weapon's recoil. This allows for the elimination of much of the heavy and bulky recoil-counteracting equipment of a conventional cannon as well as a thinner-walled barrel, and thus the launch of a relatively large projectile from a platform that would not be capable of handling the weight or recoil of a conventional gun of the same size. Technically, only devices that use spin-stabilized projectiles fired from a rifled barrel are recoilless rifles, while smoothbore variants are recoilless guns. This distinction is often lost, and both are often called recoilless rifles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BGM-71 TOW</span> American anti-tank missile

The BGM-71 TOW is an American anti-tank missile. TOW replaced much smaller missiles like the SS.10 and ENTAC, offering roughly twice the effective range, a more powerful warhead, and a greatly improved semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) that could also be equipped with infrared cameras for night time use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shoulder-fired missile</span> Shoulder mounted recoilless launcher system for shells, unguided or guided rockets (missiles), etc

Shoulder-fired missile, shoulder-launched missile or man-portable missile, among other variants, are common slang-terms to describe high-caliber shoulder-mounted weapons systems – that is: weapons firing large heavy projectiles ("missiles"), typically using the backblast principle, which are small enough to be carried by a single person and fired while held on one's shoulder. The word "missile" in this context is used in its original broad sense of a heavy projectile, and encompasses all shells and rockets, guided or unguided. A more formal variant is simply shoulder-fired weapons system and the like.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle</span> Man-portable multi-role weapon system

The Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle is a Swedish-developed 84 mm (3.3 in) caliber shoulder-fired recoilless rifle, initially developed by the Royal Swedish Army Materiel Administration during the second half of the 1940s as a crew-served man-portable infantry support gun for close-range multi-role anti-armour, anti-personnel, battlefield illumination, smoke screening and marking fire, which has seen great export success around the globe and continues to be a popular multi-purpose support weapon in use by many nations. The Carl Gustaf 84 mm recoilless rifle is a lightweight, low-cost weapon that uses a wide range of ammunition, which makes it extremely flexible and suitable for a wide variety of roles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M72 LAW</span> Anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher

The M72 LAW is a portable one-shot 66 mm (2.6 in) unguided anti-tank weapon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LAW 80</span> Rocket-propelled grenade (anti-tank, disposable)

The LAW 80, regularly referred to as LAW 94 in British service, is a man-portable, disposable anti-tank weapon previously used by the British Army and a few other militaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NLAW</span> 2009 disposable anti-tank missile system

The Saab Bofors Dynamics NLAW, also known as the MBT LAW or RB 57, is a fire-and-forget, lightweight shoulder-fired, and disposable (single-use) line of sight (LOS) missile system, designed for infantry use. The missile uses a soft-launch system and is guided by predicted line of sight (PLOS). It can carry out an overfly top attack (OTA) on an armoured vehicle, or a direct attack (DA) on structures and non-armoured vehicles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eryx (missile)</span> Anti-tank guided missile

Eryx is a French short-range portable semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) based wire-guided anti-tank missile (ATGM) manufactured by MBDA France and by MKEK under licence. The weapon can also be used against larger bunkers and smaller pillboxes. It also has some anti-aircraft warfare ability, to bring down low flying helicopters, due to its wire-guidance system. An agreement was reached in 1989 between the French and Canadian governments to coproduce the Eryx missile system.

The FGM-172 SRAW, also known as the Predator SRAW, was a lightweight, close range missile system produced by Lockheed Martin, developed by Lockheed Martin and Israel Military Industries. It is designed to complement the FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile. The Predator had a longer range and was more powerful than the AT4 that it was designed to replace, but had a shorter range than the Javelin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PF-89</span> Anti-tank, anti-bunker rocket launcher

The PF-89 or Type 89 is a portable, disposable, unguided, shoulder-launched, anti-tank rocket-propelled rocket launcher. Developed by Norinco for the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the PF-89 was designed to replace the obsolete Type 69 RPG, providing a man-portable, single-use assault weapon system that could be used mainly by infantry squads to engage and defeat light armor and bunkers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LRAC F1</span> Shoulder-launched missile weapon

The LRAC F1, officially called Lance-Roquettes AntiChar de 89 mm modèle F1, is a French reusable rocket launcher developed by Luchaire Défense SA, and manufactured in cooperation with Manufacture Nationale d'Armes de Saint-Étienne and was, in the 1970s, marketed by Hotchkiss-Brandt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Miniman</span> Anti-tank

The Miniman is a disposable single-shot 74-mm unguided anti-tank smooth bore recoilless weapon, designed in Sweden by Försvarets Fabriksverk (FFV) and became operational in 1968.

Beyond-armour effect is a term coined by Försvarets Fabriksverk (FFV), a semi-governmental Swedish defense firm, while developing the AT4. From the 1980s this phrase was used in its brochures, press releases, weapon instruction manuals and other documentation to denote the post-penetration effect of the AT4's HEAT anti-armour warhead against the interior and occupants of armoured vehicles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Backblast area</span> Area where hot gas is expelled from a recoilless launcher during firing

The backblast area is a cone-shaped area behind a rocket launcher, rocket-assisted takeoff unit or recoilless rifle, where hot gases are expelled when the rocket or rifle is discharged. The backblast area is dangerous to ground personnel, who may be burned by the gases or exposed to overpressure caused by the explosion. In confined spaces, common in urban warfare, even the operators themselves may be at risk due to deflection of backblast by walls or sturdier civilian vehicles behind them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AT4</span> Disposable anti-tank launcher

The AT4 is a Swedish 84 mm (3.31 in) unguided, man-portable, disposable, shoulder-fired recoilless anti-tank weapon manufactured by Saab Bofors Dynamics. The AT4 is not a rocket launcher strictly speaking, because the explosive warhead is not propelled by a rocket motor. Rather, it is a smooth-bore recoilless gun. Saab has had considerable sales success with the AT4, making it one of the most common light anti-tank weapons in the world. The M136 AT4 is a variant used by the United States Army.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Man-portable anti-tank systems</span> Weapon system designed for infantry use against tanks

Man-portable anti-tank systems are traditionally portable shoulder-launched projectile systems firing heavy shell-type projectiles, typically designed to combat protected targets, such as armoured vehicles, field fortifications and at times even low-flying aircraft.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MARA (anti-tank weapon)</span> Anti-tank rocket launcher

The MARA is a portable one-shot 78 mm unguided anti-tank weapon, designed and manufactured in Argentina by Fabricaciones Militares (DGFM). The solid rocket propulsion unit was developed by CITEFA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kestrel (rocket launcher)</span> Anti-tank weapon

The Kestrel is an individual shoulder-launched weapon system developed by Taiwan's National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology and currently in service with the Republic of China Armed Forces and Coast Guard Administration.

References

  1. Shortly after the Viper was canceled, the U.S. Army dropped the term LAW (light antitank weapon) and replaced it with LAAW (light anti-armor weapon) and LMPW (light multi-purpose weapon).
  1. Ludvigsen, Eric C, ed. (1983–84), Army Green Book, p. 307.
  2. Graves, Jim (Fall 1985), "Viper Bites the Dust", Combat Weapons, p. 36.
  3. Kyle, D; Meyer, D (October 1983), "Interview: General Donald R. Keith", Armed Forces Journal International: 52.
  4. Kyle, D (November 1983), "Viper Dead, Army Picks AT-4 Antitank Missile", Armed Forces Journal International: 21.
  5. "My Library".
  6. Viper 2 photo photobucket.com
  7. "My Library".
  8. "General Dynamics FGR-17 Viper".