Hearings

posal. Contract negotiations are therefore always based on hard estimates of what actual salaries and allowable overhead costs are to be. Mr. MAHON. Do you have any further questions, Mr. Andrews? Mr. ANDREWS. I have no further questions.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Lipscomb?

ARPA PERSONNEL

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Doctor, would you for the record please tell the committe how many employees ARPA currently has and how it compares with the number last year?

Dr. HERZFELD. Yes, I can give you the exact numbers now. We have 129 authorized positions and have 125 filled right now. This is in Washington. We have a number overseas as well.

The picture is as follows: we have 57 authorized overseas and 51 actually overseas. Last year we had approximately four less in Washington and approximately the same number overseas.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Would you put in the record a table similar to the one shown on page 597 of last year's hearings?

Dr. HERZFELD. Yes, sir. We will do that. (Information follows:)

The number of ARPA employees on board and committed as of April 1, 1966 and March 31, 1967, is as follows:

The average grade and salary of ARPA civilian employees is as follows:

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Will you also list the names and the amounts to be expended with the non-Government organizations with which ARPA will be spending the most money during fiscal year 1967?

Dr. HERZFELD. Could you give us some guidelines, Mr. Lipscomb, on how far down we are to go? The total number of contracts is very large.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Yes. It would seem to be similar to the table on page

597.

Dr. HERZFELD. We will be happy to do that.

(Information follows:)

The ten non-governmental organizations with which ARPA will expend the greatest amounts of FY 1967 funds are as follows:

Space Technology Laboratories (now TRW Systems) remains on the ARPA top-ten list based on dollar volume. As indicated below by Mr. Beard, however, it has been deleted from the list of Federal Contract Research Centers because it does not fit the criteria for such Centers.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. There is a question I would like to ask in regard to that list.

Dr. HERZFELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. The justification sheets indicate that Space Technology Laboratories is going to be taken out of the list which usually itemizes nongovernmental organizations. Do you know why Space Technology Laboratory is being taken out of the list?

Dr. HERZFELD. You mean the basic list? No, I don't. I think Mr. Beard has a comment on this.

Mr. BEARD. These are the Federal contract research center types. I think it is largely because it is more hardware oriented rather than studies and analysis.

Dr. HERZFELD. It is actually involved in hardware engineering projects.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. We want a list of all non-Government organizations with which ARPA does business.

Dr. HERZFELD. Well, we do not basically make up this list, I believe. The criteria for which organizations go on to that list are set by someone else. We just follow the format.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Space Technological Laboratory was listed in last year's list on page 597. If it is not included in the list for fiscal 1967 explain why, and still give the amount of money.

Dr. HERZFELD. We will be happy to do that.

(NOTE: STL (TRW) is included in table provided above).

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Rhodes?

STATE OF ABM TECHNOLOGY

Mr. RHODES. I have one very general question. I do not know whether you can answer it in just a few words or not, but let me ask it, anyway.

Can you give us your appraisal of the state of the art as to the development and utilization of an anti-ballistic-missile system? Is the state of the art advanced enough so that we could, with profit, deploy such a system at the present time?

Mr. MAHON. Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

Dr. HERZFELD. I think that is a very important problem that you raise. It is often one of the key issues confronting the Defense De

partment this year as it has for a number of years. My attitude is a complicated one so I would like to start out by giving my conclusion and then explain what and why I would do it.

I think we should try and negotiate with the Soviet Union whether or not we can avoid deploying, their not deploying and we not deploying, a ballistic missile defense. I think we should try that, but if we fail I think we should deploy a defense.

Mr. RHODES. Before you leave that point, they have already deployed a system?

Dr. HERZFELD. They are in the process of deploying it and it is not clear how much they have deployed.

Mr. RHODES. All right.

Dr. HERZFELD. If such discussions fail I am in favor of deploying a thin ballistic missile defense, mostly a high altitude system to cover most of the United States, and in particular to cover our ballistic missile sites.

I think we would know how to do that fairly rapidly and at a reasonable price. I think there are a number of technical uncertainties, but there are in every system. When you start deploying a system you never know everything about it. Something new always crops up that you hadn't thought about and you have got to go through a study phase to catch up with the problem. I think, though we could do that, and that we know enough to go ahead with the kind of system which I described.

Mr. RHODES. How long do you think we should wait before we deploy? In other words, how long should we wait for this? I am an amateur in that kind of question and I am seeking answers. Dr. HERZFELD.

Mr. RHODES. All right, sir. Go ahead.

Dr. HERZFELD. The kind of system I think we could deploy would be quite effective against small attacks, and therefore would reduce danger from an attack by China to almost nothing. It would be very effective against accidental attack. It would be very effective against blackmail attacks.

Mr. RHODES. Do you have any estimate as to the probable cost of such a system?

Dr. HERZFELD. I think one could do reasonably well with $10 billion, maybe $12 or $14 billion. If you stretch it over a period of 5 years, it isn't all that much money really.

We are spending that kind of money now in Vietnam, as a matter of fact.

Mr. ANDREWS. More than that.

Dr. HERZFELD. Yes.

Mr. RHODES. Go ahead.

Dr. HERZFELD. Really this is almost the whole story unless you get into considerable technical detail.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. RHODES. When you talk about a system you are talking about the full NIKE X system, the SPARTAN plus the SPRINT?

Dr. HERZFELD. No, I was talking about my kind of a system which is somewhat smaller than the full system. I have forgotten what the Army calls what I like.

I can describe it, however. It has the SPARTAN in it and it may have the SPRINT

but you do not defend the cities with

SPRINTS. If you do that then you have to put down another $10 or $15 billion to make it worthwhile at all. That would be a significantly more ambitious system, which one may come to at the end after one has thought about it. I think it is possible that people might decide this is a good thing and we want more of it.

I would hesitate to say that now.

Mr. RHODES. Of course, in deploying a system to protect your own ICBM sites, I would think you would automatically build in the capability to defend cities.

Dr. HERZFELD. Indeed you would.

The kind of area system which we are talking about now would have some defense capabilities for the whole United States.

I should modify that to say "modest defense capabilities" because it is really a thin system. I emphasize this. It would not be very helpful or effective in a really massive attack directed against cities. Mr. RHODES. Do you think this would be effective against a small attack, the blackmail or accidental attack?

Dr. HERZFELD. Yes, and it would raise the entrance price with regard to attack against our missile force.

Mr. RHODES. Thank you.

Mr. ANDREWS. Doctor, we wish to thank you. You have been a very excellent and informative witness.

Dr. HERZFELD. It has been my pleasure to be here.

Mr. ANDREWs. Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

Mr. LIPSCOMB. May I make a couple of observations off the record! Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

(Discussion held off the record.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Doctor.

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1967.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION,

ARMY
WITNESSES