Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
htm#TAB E_Development of
DU Munitions
During the late 1950s, tungsten carbide was the primary material used for kinetic energy,
armor-piercing projectiles. When first fielded, tungsten carbide represented a quantum
improvement over its nearest competitor, high carbon steel. Its higher density
(approximately 13 gm/cc) gave it superior penetration performance against existing
armor targets. With the advent of double and triple plated armor in the 1960s, however,
tungsten munitions showed a tendency to break up before penetrating the layered armor.
This deficiency spurred the development of new alloys and materials capable of defeating
any armored threats.
Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, the US Army developed a successive series of
improved 105mm rounds (the primary caliber of the main gun on M-60 and
developmental XM-1 series tanks) using the denser 97.5 percent tungsten alloy. The
XM735 and XM774 cartridges were the first rounds developed out of the XM578
cartridge program. Although DU alloys were evaluated during this period, the tungsten
alloys in these rounds proved sufficient to meet the Army's operational requirements
against the armor targets of the period. At the same time, the Army continued to
investigate applications for DU.
One of the Army's first uses of DU was as a ballistic weight in the spotting round for the
Davy Crockett mortar warhead. Additionally, in the early 1960s, the Army tested a four-
alloy "UQuad" containing DU in experimental tests on the 105mm and 120mm Delta
Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabots (APFSDS) tank rounds. Tungsten
continued to be favored over DU, however, for two main reasons: 1) DU was still
developmental, and inconsistencies with the alloys in the manufacturing process were a
persistent problem; and 2) penetration tests against older Soviet tanks and similar targets
failed to demonstrate the clear penetration superiority of the DU round.[199]
In the mid-1970s, as it became clear that the latest-generation armors might prove
impervious to tungsten carbide penetrators, the Army's focus on improved tungsten alloys
began to shift. At the same time, parallel Air Force and Navy tests using smaller-caliber
(20mm, 25mm, and 30mm) ammunition had demonstrated quite convincingly the clear
penetration superiority of DU rounds.
In 1973, the Army evaluated alternatives for improving the lethality of its 105mm M68
tank gun. This effort grew into the XM774 Cartridge Program which, after an extensive
developmental testing and evaluation process, selected depleted uranium alloyed with ¾
percent by weight titanium (U-3/4Ti). The selection of U-3/4Ti was derived in part from
improved designs and alloys that allowed the DU core to withstand high acceleration
without breaking up. In the 1960s, tungsten alloys used in the XM578 projectile had to be
encased in a steel jacket to withstand the extreme firing velocities of the 152mm gun,
reducing the penetrating effectiveness of the tungsten cartridge.[200] The new U-3/4Ti alloy
overcame these early limitations for large caliber munitions.
The development of U-3/4Ti ushered in a new generation of penetrators for the Army.
Since the selection of DU for the XM774 cartridge, all major developments in tank
ammunition have used DU, including the 105mm M833 series and the 120mm M829
series (the latter being the primary anti-armor round used in the Gulf War). This pattern
continues today, with the latest generation of the 105mm M900 series and the 25mm
M919 for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
In the early 1970s, the Air Force developed the GAU-8/A air-to-surface gun system for
the A-10 close air support aircraft. This unique aircraft, designed to counter massive
Soviet/Warsaw Pact armored formations spearheading an attack into NATO's Central
Region, was literally designed and built around the GAU-8. This large, heavy, eight-
barreled 30-mm cannon was designed to blast through the top armor of even the heaviest
enemy tanks. To further exploit the new cannon's tremendous striking power, the Air
Force opted to use the depleted uranium U-3/4Ti alloy in a 30mm API (armor piercing
incendiary) round. The Air Force released a comprehensive environmental assessment of
the GAU-8 ammunition on January 18, 1976. The report stated that the Air Force did not
expect the DU round to have a significant environmental impact and that the "biomedical
and toxicological hazards of the use of depleted uranium (DU) in this program are
practically negligible."[201] The Air Force deployed A-10 aircraft to United States Air
Forces in Europe (USAFE) in 1978.[202]
The US Navy designed its Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) as a last-ditch
defense against sea-skimming missiles. The Navy evaluated a wide range of materials
before deciding on DU alloyed with 2 percent molybdenum (DU-2Mo).[203] Phalanx
production started in 1978, with orders for 23 systems for the US Navy and 14 systems
for foreign militaries. However, in 1989, the Navy decided to change the CIWS 20mm
round from DU to tungsten, based on live fire tests showing that tungsten met their
performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and
environmental impact.[204] It should be noted that the "soft" targets the CIWS was
designed to defeat -- anti-ship missiles at close range -- are far easier to penetrate and
destroy than "hard" targets like tanks. Substantial stocks of DU ammunition delivered
prior to that date remain in the inventory.
DoD's critics have cited paragraph c out of context to bolster claims that the DoD
downplayed a known health hazard. Comparing problems resulting from the use of DU to
other dangers of the battlefield does little to promote an understanding of the two very
different types of hazards. Whereas the danger from enemy "shooters" -- tanks, artillery,
etc. -- is obvious, the hazard posed by the release of DU requires more thoughtful
explanation. Contemporary documentation and studies indicate that, while DU could pose
a battlefield exposure hazard, that hazard can be prevented or mitigated through simple,
field-expedient precautions. Moreover, DU's operational benefits -- realized on the Gulf
War battlefields -- vastly outweigh the exposure risks encountered during a campaign
using DU.
Specific radiological, health, and environmental assessments augmented the JTCG/ME
report as the various weapon systems were developed. For example, the Air Force
prepared a study entitled Environmental Assessment, Depleted Uranium (DU) Armor
Penetrating Munition for the GAU-8 Automatic Cannon, Development and Operational
Test and Evaluation (April 1975). The Air Force prepared this study in accordance with
Air Force Regulation 19-2, which complied with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. The study stated that the "biomedical and toxicological hazards of the use of
depleted uranium (DU) in this program are practically negligible."[208] Other assessments
of the GAU-8 round included Hazard Classification Test of GAU-8 Ammunition by
Bonfire Cookoff with Limited Air Sampling by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in
1976 (Report # 4 in Tab L) and External Radiation Hazard Evaluation of GAU-8 API
Munitions by the USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory in 1978
(Report # 6 in Tab L).
To support the development of the new generation 105mm armor-piercing cartridge, the
Army conducted a series of studies recommended by the JTCG/ME to fill gaps in the
existing body of information. The initial three studies were: Characterization of Airborne
Uranium From Test Firings of XM774 Ammunition, November 1979, (Report # 10 in Tab
L); Radiation Characterization, and Exposure Rate Measurements from Cartridge,
105mm, APFSDS-T, XM774, November 1979, (Report # 9 in Tab L); and Radiological
and Toxicological Assessment of an External Heat (Burn) Test of the 105mm Cartridge,
APFSDS-T, XM 744, 1978.
The aforementioned tests were only the initial investigations into the ecological,
environmental, radiological, safety, and health concerns associated with the early DU
munitions. For example, the US Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI) report,
Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army, cited
three other reports that reached conclusions similar to the JTCG/ME report on the health
effects of military DU use.[209]
In addition to the formalized hazard assessments required by DoD directives, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the peacetime handling and use of DU.
Currently, the NRC has issued single Master Materials Licenses to the Navy and the Air
Force. The Navy and Air Force Radioisotope Committees then issue radioactive material
permits to the individual service activities involving DU. In the case of the Army, the
NRC issued 14 individual NRC licenses directly to each Army organization responsible
for DU management. The individual services and the NRC monitor compliance with
NRC regulations and the license-specific requirements through periodic, on-site
inspections. Although specific requirements vary from site to site, typical license
requirements include the supervision and oversight of procedures involving DU by
qualified radiation protection officers, the posting of areas containing DU munitions, and
periodic leak testing of stored munitions.
The services fielded DU munitions and armor only after rigorous testing and evaluation
that carefully considered their environmental impact and potential for battlefield
contamination. The fact that DU exposures took place during the Gulf War is not
indicative of a haphazard or incomplete development, testing, or evaluation regime.
Rather, exposure issues were typically the result of the services' failure to properly
disseminate cautionary information and warnings to the decision-makers and operators
whose duties might expose them to DU contamination, and to practice better risk
management.
3. Current Uses of DU
DU is currently used in kinetic cartridges for the Army's 25mm BUSHMASTER cannon
(M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), the 105mm cannon (M1 and M60 series tanks) and the
120mm cannon (M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams Tank). The M1A1 (HA), the Heavy Armor
variant of the M1A1, also employs layered DU for increased armor protection. The
Marines use DU tank rounds in their own M1-series tanks and a 25mm DU round in the
GAU-12 Gatling gun on Marine AV-8 Harriers. The Army uses small amounts of DU as
an epoxy catalyst for two anti-personnel mines: the M86 Pursuit Deterrent Munition and
the Area Denial Artillery Munition.[210] The Air Force uses a 30mm DU round in the
GAU-8 Gatling gun on the A-10. On a very limited basis, the F-16 can be modified to an
A-16 ("A" signifying "Attack") with the addition of the GPU30 gun pod for close air
support. The A-16's GPU30 gun pod is capable of firing 30mm DU rounds. Flown only
by the New York Air National Guard's 174th Tactical Fighter Wing, the A-16s flew only
one Gulf War mission (on February 26, 1991), firing approximately 1,000 30mm DU
rounds.[211] The 20mm DU round developed by the Navy for use in its shipboard
PHALANX Close In Weapons System (CIWS) remains in service; however, since Fiscal
Year 1990, the Navy has procured only tungsten rounds for the CIWS. The 20mm DU
rounds remaining in the inventory will be used until the supply is exhausted.[212]
In addition, the Army has tested limited quantities of small caliber DU ammunition
(5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50 caliber).[213] However, the Army produced these rounds in
limited quantities for developmental testing only and evaluation and never type-classified
them for standard use. Some veterans claim to have fired 50-caliber DU sniper rounds
during the Gulf War, but this claim could not be supported after numerous interviews
with the manufacturer of the 50 caliber sniper rifle, with ammunition suppliers, and with
the DoD logisticians responsible for small caliber ammunition.[214] The 50-caliber sniper
rifle did fire an API (armor piercing incendiary) round, but the round did not contain DU.
There have been similar claims that cruise missiles fired during the Gulf War contained
DU. DU is used to simulate the weight of a nuclear warhead in the developmental testing
and evaluation of the nuclear version of certain cruise missiles, but no cruise missiles
fired during the Gulf War contained DU.[215,216]
DU is also used in numerous commercial applications:[217,218]