3. Identify issues where the Sergeant York program violated fundamental best practices in test & evaluation and the defense acquisition process (answer is to be minimum a full 1-page in length). week 1 system failure case study - Sergeant York Tank program FORGOTTEN HISTORY: THE M247 SERGEANT YORK AND ITS PROPENSITY TO LOCK ONTO LATRINES INSTEAD OF ENEMY AIRCRAFT February 22, 2017 Kad Smallwood The M247 Sergeant York was officially designated as a 'self-propelled anti-aircraft gun" but was for all intents and purposes a tank chassis with anti-aircraft guns attached to the top. The vehicle was named for one Alvin York, a famous and highly decorated WW1 hero who captured over 100 German soldiers pretty much single handedly. Unfortunately for the U.S. tax payers who spent just shy of $2 billion on it (about $4.8 billion today or, humorously enough, after appropriately adjusting for inflation to make the dollar values match, about 1/11th what the entire Apollo program cost), the final version of the weapon ended up being so useless its automatic targeting system couldn't distinguish between a toilet vent fan and a jet plane, the vehicle itself couldn't keep up with the tanks it was designed to protect, and it was made obsolete by advances in enemy weaponry after only a few dozen faulty units were made. Here now is the story of the forgotten M247. This particular weapon was developed by the defunct off-shoot of Ford known as Ford Aerospace in response to a contract put out by the US Army in 1977 requesting what they referred to as an: "Advanced Radar-directed Gun Air Defense System". This was later re- dubbed, "Division Air Defense" which was itself shorted to DIVAD in official documentation Briefly, the Army wanted a drivable anti-aircraft system that was to serve alongside their newly developed M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley tanies in battle. The contract was put out in direct response to a battle tactic known as "pop-up" which essentially involved helicopters Pg. 1