because they are in Government-owned facilities. Nevertheless, the contract capability is a high professional competency and it is one that has paid off in the propulsion area over the years. I would be pleased to supply it. Mr. LIPSCOMB. You can supply the information. (The material referred to is classified and has been furnished separately to the committee.) Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SIKES. I note that your requirements in this area are considerably smaller than those of either the Air Force or Navy. There are, of course, some differences in the type of work that is done. But this also could be an indication that you are embarked on a realistic down-to-earth program more in keeping with the actual requirements. This committee has had some concern about the amount of expenditures in this field, particularly by the armed services. VEHICLE RAPID FIRE WEAPONS Mr. SIKES. One question on vehicle rapid fire weapons. A few years ago the Congress was asked to appropriate money to purchase the 20-millimeter Hispano Suiza gun from Germany because it was alleged that the United States had not developed as good a gun. What efforts are being made to develop a follow-on weapon to the Hispano Suiza 20-millimeter gun? General BETTS. As you are probably aware, with their own company funds, as well as with some support from the Army, the TRW company has been working on a weapon that is pointed toward the vehicle rapid fire weapons system requirement. It is of a higher caliber than the HS-820. We believe it is necessary to go to a higher caliber in order to get the kill capabilities that we will need. We do not, at the moment, have a firm commitment as to how this development will be pursued, but we propose to go into a contract definition phase in order to pin down the feasibility of getting the kill capability we want with the minimum caliber possible. Mr. SIKES. That would indicate we have not progressed very far toward a follow-on weapon. General BETTS. It would indicate that our time scale is matched to the probable date of availability of the MICV-70, the vehicle for which we want that weapon. Mr. SIKES. When will that be? General BETTS. That should be in Mr. SIKES. Do you feel we are losing any important time by this process? General BETTS. I belive that the development is properly matched to the requirement. General GUTHRIE. We spent quite some time on this very recently, sir, because we are asking for funds to go into contract definition for the vehicle rapid fire weapons system. One of the things we have looked at is the feasibility, for example, of going to a caseless round in the near term and our studies and deliberate judgment have indicated to us that we should, in order to insure the availability of a weapon which will be applicable to MICV 70, perhaps the main battle tank 70, and to the armored reconnaissance and scout vehicle if it is decided to put this type of weapon on, we should first go to a conventional solution, and we have gone into an exploratory development at an increased rate on the caseless vehicle rapid fire weapons system which would be a follow-on. Certainly the TRW-25 is a competitor in this area. We do feel that the important thing is to have the several systems carefully balanced so we are sure we can proceed with them in a realistic manner and with realistic funding levels. We had hoped to make the recommendation of this to the Chief of Staff and secure approval within the next 30 to 60 days. Mr. SIKES. Is there to be a general utilization of the caseless system and ammunition? General GUTHRIES. We would hope so ultimately, sir. We still have a great deal of work to do in this particular area. We are planning to put additional funds into exploratory development in order to try and determine if it is feasible to achieve the very material benefits which we would expect to result. Mr. SIKES. In what areas do you expect it to be utilized first in the field? General BETTS. We are already using a first step in the conventional rounds for the Sheridan. It is not a combustible case, not completely caseless. Mr. SIKES. Does it achieve the same effect? General BETTS. It achieves part of the gain one gets from the caseless. But we are not yet ready to say when we can have a caseless. That is the difficulty. General GUTHRIE. I would say in answer to your question that true caseless round either in one of the small arms, either 35-, 20- to 30millimeter area or perhaps in the handheld weapon area, we are looking at both. Mr. SIKES. To what extent has Army modernization—that is, development of new weapons and equipment-been delayed or hindered by the NIH factor? Do you know what that is? General BETTS. Yes. Mr. SIKES. It means "not invented here," not developed in Army laboratories, arsenals, et cetera. General BETTS. I cannot identify any case where the people within the in-house Army structure have blocked a good development from some other source because they felt they had not invented it. I suspect there are people on the outside who would challenge that statement because their idea was not accepted for one reason or another. Mr. SIKES. How many instances can you identify where our people have ruined the promise of a good weapon or good equipment by adding new fixtures and delaying its utilization by unnecessary repetition in testing? General BETTS. I do not identify any that I would say were developed just because we liked to gadgeteer. I do recognize that we have made some of our equipment and our weapons more expensive than they might have been otherwise in order to satisfy stated user requirements. The user is not all wise and frequently he asks for Mr. SIKES. We also suffered delays and found we were spending a lot more money unnecessarily as a result of those policies, have we not? General BETTS. That can occur. That is correct. But as the individual in charge of the research and development program, I have to recognize that we can develop nothing unless it satisfies the ultimate user. This is a continuing problem to convince the user that he does not really need all the things he would like to have. RESEARCH ON COUNTERINFILTRATION Mr. SIKES. There are some questions on counterinfiltration which I should like to ask. There has been a good deal of discussion of recent R. & D. efforts in the field of counterinfiltration. What is the Army doing in this area? General BETTS. I will be glad to supply that for the record. (Information supplied follows:) A wide variety of devices which address the problem of countering infiltration are available or are under development. A description of each follows: a. The AN/PSR-1 produced by Texas Instruments. It is a standard US Marine Corps item now in use in Vietnam by both the Army and Marines. The system consists of four geophones, or pick-up devices which can be buried, and a control unit which can be remoted by field wire up to one mile. It produces an audio tone when it detects movement. This geophone will detect personnel movement from 20 to 100 meters, depending on the type of soil, and vehicular movement from 200 to 500 meters. Soft sand produces the poorest signature; hard soil or rock the best. Therefore each system is capable of protecting a linear trace of from 160 to 800 feet. The device uses 6 D cell batteries with operating life of 2 to 3 weeks. Operational procedure is simple, as is maintenance. In its present configuration each control unit requires an operator with a head set to monitor the audio signal. It cannot discriminate between individual geophones. b. Alarm Set, Anti-Intrusion AN/GSS-9 (Breakwire). This is an inexpensive, throw-away item, simple to operate and maintain. The device consists of a small alarm box and a pair of fine wires laid out in any suitable pattern. The wires can be wrapped around trees, small shrubs, rocks or stakes or in any other fashion to keep them a short distance off the ground. [Delete.] The wire is so fine that an intruder does not realize he has severed it. A single device is capable of protecting 3000 meters linear trace. This is a one-time device in that after each intrusion the pattern must be relaid or the break repaired. The device uses D cell batteries which provide 100 hours operation. The only maintenance involved is to replace the battery and the spool of wire. The device is currently in production. c. AN/PPS-5 Pulse Doppler Radar. The PPS-5 is a lightweight ground surveillance radar featuring low power consumption and silent operation. The PPS-5 is capable of detecting a walking man to 5000 meters and a 4 ton truck to 10,000 meters range. An aural indication is provided at the radar. The PPS-5 replaces both the AN/PPS-4 short range and the TPS-33 Medium Range Ground Surveillance Radars. (Additional information was submitted to the committee.) Mr. SIKES. Are a number of the counterinfiltration schemes somewhat impractical? (The material referred to is classified and has been furnished separately to the committee.) Mr. SIKES. Which of the counterinfiltration devices which you have mentioned have been approved for operational use? General BETTS. The AN/PRS-1, alarm set, anti-intrusion AN/ GSS-9 (breakwire), and image intensification devices have been aproved for operational use. Mr. SIKES. Has the development of counterinfiltration devices been neglected in the past, to a considerable extent? General BETTS. We have not neglected the development of counterinfiltration devices in the past. Development of radars, image intensification devices and antipersonnel and antivehicular munitions, among others, was initiated prior to our heavy involvement in Vietnam. It is true though that the Vietnam war has acted as a catalyst to speed up and increase our development effort on sensors which can be used in counterinfiltration devices, many of which I referred to previously. Mr. SIKES. Thank you very much. This concludes the Army portion of the research and development hearings. TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1967. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY HON. ROBERT A. FROSCH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT) REAR ADM. H. G. BOWEN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (DEVELOPMENT) REAR ADM. E. E. GRIMM, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND REPORTS REAR ADM. E. W. DOBIE, OFFICE OF THE DCNO (DEVELOPMENT) CAPT. R. K. IRVINE, SURFACE MISSILES SYSTEMS PROJECT OFFICE CAPT. V. P. HEALEY, ASW PROJECT OFFICE R. C. WARSING, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TO ASN (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT) COMDR. I. E. HANSEN, OFFICE OF THE DCNO (DEVELOPMENT) |