COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman

KENNETH SPRANKLE, Clerk and Staff Director PAUL M. WILSON, Assistant Olerk and Staff Director

DEPOSITED BY THI UNITED STATES F NERIDA

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 1968

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1967.

DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

WITNESSES

DR. JOHN F. FOSTER, JR., DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING

CAPT. PRESTON N. SHAMER, U.S. NAVY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO
THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
MAJ. GEN. R. S. MOORE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT SECRE-
TARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)

Mr. MAHON. The committee will resume its hearing on Defense requirements for the fiscal year 1968.

We have before us this morning Dr. John Foster, who will make a presentation in his capacity as Director of Defense Research and Engineering.

Dr. Foster, you have quite an extensive statement. We shall be pleased to have you proceed as you like.

GENERAL STATEMENT OF DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING

Dr. FOSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to report on the status of research and development in the Department of Defense.

Secretary McNamara has presented our fiscal year 1968 budget requests, including research and development, in the context of our major policies. My purpose today is to provide additional information on our request for R.D.T. & E. funds.

In terms of total obligational authority for R.D.T. & E., we are requesting $7.523 billion, compared with our program of $7.177 billion in fiscal year 1967, an increase of $346 million. In terms of new obligational authority, we are requesting $7.273 billion. The fiscal year 1967 figure includes the supplemental appropriation of $135 million.

QUESTION OF WASTE IN PROGRAM

Mr. MAHON. Let me interrupt you at this early stage in your presentation. As you know, research and development has been the instrument through which vast billions of dollars have been secured in appropriations for various agencies of the Government. There are many who think and who have thought for a long time there is probably a lot of waste in research and development. I was denounced in some quar

(1)

ters a number of years ago because I had said many crimes have been committed in the name of liberty and research and development, but I stand by that statement.

What is your general feeling now as to the validity of the research and development programs which come under your general

surveillance?

Dr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that in anything that is as comprehensive as the Department of Defense program, not to mention all the other programs of research and development in the country, it is possible that, here and there, there will be a misuse of funds. I do think the system set up in the last 6 years in the Department of Defense under Mr. McNamara has contributed in a major way to a removal of unnecessary duplication and a very careful and critical analysis of each and every item before its support is requested by the Congress. I cannot guarantee that even with this improvement in procedure, there is not some item somewhere that I have overlooked.

CANCELLATION OR REDIRECTION OF PROGRAMS

Mr. MAHON. Would you give us some examples of proposed research or development projects at which you have looked real hard and decided should be abandoned or redirected?

Dr. FOSTER. Yes; Mr. Chairman, I will.

The effort, for example, on HOUND DOG in recent years has been to attempt an increase in the accuracy of delivery of this nuclear weapon. Our review has indicated that the costs to achieve this increase in accuracy have about doubled. As a consequence, we decided it simply was not worth the money, and we canceled the program. Mr. MAHON. You did not cancel HOUND DOG, you canceled the improvement effort?

Dr. FOSTER. The improvement in the guidance system.

Mr. MAHON. Thereby, you forestalled the expenditure of probably how much money for the research and development period?

Dr. FOSTER. About $33.7 million, Mr. Chairman. The original estimate was only $20 million, but further study indicated that the R. & D. cost would increase to $33.7 million.

Mr. ANDREWS. How much has the R. & D. for that whole program cost?

Dr. FOSTER. The original development cost of the HOUND DOG, which is currently in our operational inventory, was several hundred million dollars, in fact $360 million. There is no R. & D. on HOUND DOG at present.

Mr. ANDREWS. Then $33.7 million is just a drop in the bucket, by comparison.

Dr. FOSTER. Yes; $14.7 million was the amount which we had already received from Congress for the research and development to improve the guidance system. It would have cost much more, not only in research and development, but in deployment.

Mr. SIKES. What is your estimate of the total cost of obtaining HOUND DOG missiles with the improved guidance system? It might have been worth $33.7 million to get that degree of additional ac

curacy.

Dr. FOSTER. It would have been in the vicinity of $79 million; $33.7 million to complete the R. & D., and $45.3 million in procurement to make the actual changes to the guidance systems of the missiles in the inventory.

Mr. MAHON. All right, give us another example where you have examined a program and changed it.

Dr. FOSTER. In the Army there is, as you know, consideration for a forward area defense system. This is a system to replace the REDEYE, CHAPARRAL guns, and other such systems. As you know, REDEYE is just being tested this summer in the field, and the CHAPARRAL gun system will not be in the field until

As a consequence, it seemed to us inappropriate to initiate a follow-on system at this time. I think further work ought to be done to provide a clearer understanding of the objective of the system.

Another example in the Army would be the LANCE missile system. This system is still in development. It is due for deployment in. We are all interested in increasing the range of the system. In my opinion, it is important to deploy the LANCE system and not to have a major modification go into the field a few months after the initial deployment. Therefore, the extended range LANCE system was delayed so as to permit us to find the initial bugs in the LANCE system so as to permit their correction in the extended range one when it comes along.

Another example in the Army would be the PERSHING system. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. MAHON, Will you insert in the record some more examples for the benefit of the committee?

Dr. FOSTER. Certainly.

(The requested information follows:)

FURTHER EXAMPLES OF REDIRECTED PROGRAMS

FAX. A Joint Study Review Team is currently examining the advanced fighter requirements of the Air Force and Navy. The Navy is currently updating their VFAX Technical Development Plan and SOR and the Air Force expects to forward their Concept Formulation Package sometime in April 1967. The Air Force requested fiscal year 1968 RDT&E with the intention of starting Contract Definition in The Navy requested to expedite development of VFAX avionics with the intention of starting Contract Definition in

Since the Air Force/Navy have still not finalized their advanced fighter requirements, the FAX Study Review Group has been unable to make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on the need for advanced fighter aircraft for the two Services and whether or not development of a single bi-service aircraft (FAX) is feasible and desirable. As a result of this uncertainty only fiscal year 1968 RDT&E is proposed for the Air Force and for the Navy pending better definition of their advanced fighter requirements. This level of funding delays Contract Definition until but is sufficient to continue Concept Formulation and system integration studies i.e. engines, avionics, new air-to-air missile etc. Should the Navy/Air Force studies show an urgent need for an advanced fighter at an early date, it may be prudent to start Contract Definition in - - however, at the moment this appears unlikely. MAVERICK. I am examining MAVERICK (an electro-optically guided air-tosurface guided missile) in order to insure that the proposed system will be operationally desirable and technically sound. Also the Air Force is having redone several studies that are prerequisite to contract definition. This rework is

eansing about a

As a result,

rather than the

slippage extending throughout the whole program plan. R.D.T. & E. should suffice for this program in fiscal year 1968, originally requested by the Air Force.

SOUND PROGRAMS WHICH APPEAR FOOLISH

Mr. MAHON. From time to time, someone comes up with a research and development project that sounds very ridiculous. Sometimes the name of the project is outlandish. Maybe the project itself is not so bad, but its image is bad and people are misled into thinking that it is utterly ridiculous. Can you recall any programs of this nature? Of course, I am sure some proposals are utterly ridiculous, but I wanted your comment on this.

Dr. FOSTER. Sir, I could mention one idea that I heard of recently which, on the face of it, to most technical men I believe would be considered unreasonable or unlikely to work, which turned out to be more successful than any other scheme currently available. This is a system to determine whether or not people are crossing a particular area of ground, a counterinfiltration mechanism.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Of what practical use would this be?

Dr. FOSTER. It seemed intuitively to a number of people it would be unreasonable to have this scheme turn out to be very sensitive. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. MAHON. Are you using it extensively?

Dr. FOSTER. No, sir. It is one which has just been developed recently.

Mr. MAHON. Do you think it has any long-range promise?

Dr. FOSTER. We have run tests

it does have long-range promise.

with it recently, and I believe

Mr. SIKES. Could not this system be jammed and its effectiveness destroyed?

Dr. FOSTER. One procedure one might think about to neutralize the effectiveness of this would be to

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. Shelling is one thing which would automatically come to mind as a means of neutralizing it. Even random shelling might well destroy segments of it. Running ditches without leaving some obvious marks behind to alert an enemy patrol to see what is under there.

Dr. FOSTER. Mr. Sikes, I did not claim it was perfect. I presented it as an example of an item in response to the chairman's request, which seemingly might not be very effective but in fact turned out to be effective, at least as regards the principle.

Mr. SIKES. You may have focused on an idea that will have other interpretations, which is really what we want.

Dr. FOSTER. Quite so.

Mr. MAHON. Proceed.

Dr. FOSTER. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting a budget for fiscal 1968 in R.D.T. & E. of $7.523 billion.

This is, I know, a substantial budget. We have requested only the funds necessary to support research and development effort where the problems are pressing, the needs clear, the approach sound, and the talent available. In establishing priorities, some programs-those which did not "measure up"-have been deferred or slowed down. Wherever practical, I have emphasized joint service programs.