User:Jackehammond/sandboxes-FRG-17 VIPER

FGR-17 VIPER
The FGR-17 VIPER in extended position
Type	Anti-tank
Place of origin	United States
Service history
In service	1983 - canceled same year
Wars	Cold War
Production history
Designed	Late 1970s
Manufacturer	General Dynamics, Pomona Division
Unit cost	$1,310.00 FY 1982-83
Produced	1982
Specifications
Mass	4kg
Length	111.7cm ready to fire
Caliber	70mm
Muzzle velocity	257ms
Effective firing range	250m moving - 500m stationary
Sights	pop up M16 type iron sights

The FRG-17 VIPER is a one man disposable antitank rocket which had slated in the 1980s to be the replacement for the M72 LAW, but was canceled shortly after production began due a major public scandal resulting from massive cost over runs and safety concerns, and the mistaken belief by the US Congress and the US Public that the term light antitank weapon meant a weapon that could defeat any hostile armored vehicle threat from any firing angle. Including a frontal shot against Russia's new T-64 and T-72 main battle tanks.

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 US Army designated General Dynamics as the prime contractor, changing the ILAW program name to VIPER. The main requirements for the ILAW/VIPER program was 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 would replace. In fact, when the ILAW requirement was first issued, the US Army wanted an individual weapon which low cost would make it as prolific in infantry units as the hand grenade was. All these requirements -- ie some items which were contradictory to each other -- proved to be to much a hurdle even for a major defense contractor like General Dynamics, resulting in 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 concluded "Viper did not demonstrate any significant superiority over the M72 LAW." Then the news media discovered that when General Dynamics was named the primary contractor in 1976 for the VIPER program, they had told the US Army that when full mass production for the VIPER was reached, the cost of VIPER would be $78.00 per round before inflation! With all the negative publicity the US Army decided to continue with the VIPER program and making improvements. And in December 1981 awarded a $14.4 million dollar start up production contract to General Dynamics for 1400 VIPER rounds. Shortly after this contract was issued, there were also reports that during field evaluation test by the US Army numerous test firings had was shown VIPER rounds to have a safety problem with its fuse system that caused the warhead to explode shortly after launch and even one accident at Ft Benning, Georgia where a helicopter pallet of VIPER rounds were found to be damaged by static electricity. Because of the GAO report, cost over runs and the safety concerns, in December 1982 Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) inserted an amendment in to the US Army's funding bill mandating a testing of available light antitank weapons which were already in production, including non-US light antitank weapons, with a report back to Congress in 1983. The following February 1982, in a move that even took the strongest supporters of the US Army by surprise, the US Army issued a second contract 83.7 million for 60,000 more VIPER rounds. This additional VIPER production order resulted in the Congress deleting all funding for the VIPER, with the exception of funding for VIPERs in the mandated test by Congress of off-the-shelf light antitank weapons mandated by Congress. At this time, General Dynamics made the decision not to compete in the tests mandated by Congress, because of the US Army's demand for a fixed price contract on any improved-VIPER manufactured in the future. This meant that the VIPER program was effectively at an end with the US Army canceling all production contracts on September 1983. And the results of the and the mandated tests, the Swedish designed AT4 was reported to Congress in 1983 as the most suitable off-the-shelf option to replace the M72 LAW.