In "budget activity 2, aircraft and related equipment," our program for fiscal year 1968 is $279.5 million. This is about $55 million less than our fiscal year 1967 estimate, due to large variations in funding of individual aircraft programs. Included in this request are advanced or engineering development funds for six new models of fleet aircraft: the F-111B interceptor, A-7A light attack aircraft, EA-6B electronics warfare aircraft, a new carrier-based antisubmarine aircraft now referred to as VS-X, an advanced carrier-based early warning and control aircraft (E-2B), and preliminary work required for a new multimission fighter-attack aircraft. I will discuss these new developments individually. In addition, this activity funds development of drone targets, aircraft avionics, airborne ASW equipment and expendable stores, and a vital exploratory development program. The E-2A is a twin-engine carrier-based aircraft carrying a large search radar (APS-96), electronic computer and digital data link. The functions of this aircraft are to extend greatly the airspace surveillance area in the approaches to a naval force. It has demonstrated an additional capability to control friendly aircraft inbound and outbound on strike missions, or in intercept of enemy aircraft. As I mentioned earlier, this weapon system has been deployed in the fleet since 1965, and has performed outstanding service in support of our Air Forces in Southeast Asia. — -. A separate effort to improve on this characteristic is underway in engineering development and I will describe that later. The fiscal year 1968 funds of for the E-2A will be utilized to develop, test, and evaluate improvements for the airborne tactical data system (ATDS) contained in the aircraft. The ATDS operates in conjunction with the naval tactical data system (NTDS) in many of our surface ships, and the combination enables the five-man crew of the E-2A to handle a vastly greater number of air targets, both friendly and enemy, than could be accomplished manually. (A film was shown.) Commander HANSEN. These shots were taken last November during carrier trials of the A-7A aboard U.S.S. America off the Virginia capes. You might have noticed in the two catapult shots the nose gear tow. This is one of the first aircraft that uses that catapulting method. These are a couple of arrested landing scenes. The empty weight of this aircraft is about pounds and internal fuel of pounds. It resembles the F-8 fighter aircraft. Mr. FROSCH. The A-7A light attack aircraft development was initiated about 3 years ago to provide a successor to the A-4 aircraft. First flight took place in September 1965, and the first fleet_pilottraining squadron was equipped with the A-7A last October. Initial carrier trials were conducted in November aboard America. During the course of the flight test program a number of development problems were encountered as is normal in new aircraft. As an example, engine stall was caused by steam ingestion during catapult launch. Fixes are being developed for this and other difficulties. I see nothing at this time that will delay deployment of the aircraft. The quested in fiscal year 1968 will be required for development and flight test of improved aircraft survivability and weapon delivery systems. re Since the Navy's appearance last year a number of significant changes have occurred in the A-7 production program. The A-7 program in itself has increased in size and the management has become more complicated with the advent of the Air Force participation in the program. The necessity to merge the individual service requirements and desirability of standardizing as much as possible the configurations of the aircraft between the services has increased the program complexity. In addition knowledge gained during the Southeast Asia conflict has shown both services the desirability and the urgency of making a number of changes to the previous aircraft configuration at the earliest possible time-particularly in the areas of engine, armament, and weapons delivery capability. We plan to incorporate these changes on a block basis during the fiscal year 1967 buy. We no longer plan to incorporate the full ILAAS system in the later portion of the fiscal year 1968 buy. Instead we have decided to incorporate a less ambitious avionics suit in the A-7A in order to gain earlier availability. The Air Force and Navy are in the process of completing a detailed study to define the weapons delivery, navigation and other avionics improvements which will be incorporated in the A-7A. It is my judgment, however, that the ILAAS development will contribute significantly to the realization of improved avionics in the A-7A and in future attack aircraft. We are requesting $38.2 million for the F-111B program which is being developed in conjunction with the Phoenix missile system to provide the Navy with an advanced antiair warfare weapon system for deployment in the 1970's. As you know, the overall management and primary funding responsibility for the F-111 program rests with the Air Force. The Navy funds development of those portions of the aircraft and equipment which are peculiar to naval requirements as well as all end-item hardware, spares, special support equipment, and the like. Weight problems were evident early in the program and the contractor embarked on an extensive corrective program to reduce weight. The results of this program as well as new high-lift devices to reduce landing and takeoff speeds could not be included until the fourth and fifth R. & D. aircraft which were delivered this past year. Flight tests of the early R. & D. aircraft, which did not include the weight reduction, showed that they required improvement in many areas, as is not unusual in new aircraft. Based on the flight performance of those first R. & D. aircraft, development of an engine with increased thrust (TF 30 P-12) was authorized. During the ensuing year, we have initiated those airframe changes which are necessary to incorporate the uprated engine in F-111B No. 6. This has required a schedule adjustment by virtue of engine leadtime, such that the scheduled delivery of the first preproduction F-111B (No. 6) is now scheduled for the spring of 1968, vice the fall of 1967. To achieve a more economical and efficient production schedule, we have also adjusted the delivery point of the next 20 production aircraft so that they follow the four preproduction aircraft without a break in the production line. As a further consequence of flight tests, we have determined that some modification will be necessary to achieve satisfactory carrier suitability and other features. We have under analysis today, configuration changes which address those elements of carrier suitability and that have been identified to date as inadequate; that is, visibility and balance. It is our intent to stabilize the F-111B configuration at the first preproduction aircraft-No. 6-the new engine and most of the carrier suitability improvements will be in Nos. 6 and 7. They will be used principally for tests of the P-12. In No. 8 and all following there will be inclusion of the changes for the new engine, the known carrier suitability improvements, and those modifications which may best be determined necessary by flight test of the current configuration. Funds to support the Navy flight test program are included in the fiscal year 1968 request. The revised production schedule and realigned flight test program take into account the previous adjustment in the PHOENIX missile program. At the present time we expect to introduce the F-111B/PHOENIX weapon system into the fleet in 1970. During the past 6 months, a detailed and extensive review of the anticipated air threat to the fleet was conducted by the Chief of Naval Operations. This review validated the anticipated threat the F-111B/ PHOENIX weapon system is being designed to meet, and reaffirmed the desirability of such a system in an air defense role. The F-111B/ PHOENIX system, which relies on the three elements of a long-range missile, multishot and track-while-scan missile system, and supersonic airframe was proven substantially more cost effective than any other alternative available in the immediate time frame. Alternatives included the PHOENIX missile system in other airframes as well as other fighter/missile systems available in the same time frame. The most significant result from this detailed review is that the F-111B/ PHOENIX system is the most desirable option to meet the fleet air threat in the early 1970's. The study, referenced above, however, did indicate that for fighter missions other than fleet air defense, additional fighter planes would be desirable. -We, therefore, expect to retain some of the F-4J/SPARROW weapons system that we are currently procuring as our firstline fleet air defense fighter for other roles after the introduction of the F-111B. Funds in fiscal year 1968 for the F-111B program are requested for miscellaneous avionic component development, air frame modifications to accept the higher thrust TF-30-P-12 engine, support of the flight test schedule, and configuration changes to the aircraft. The integrated light attack avionics system (ILAAS) will provide future attack aircraft with all-weather navigation, automatic terrain following, automatic visual weapon delivery, and limited all-weather weapon delivery. The system is designed for a high degree of reliability and improved maintainability. Its modular design permits growth in any of the specific functions. The Air Force is being kept abreast of system development as it relates to their MARK II program. Development flight test commencing this year in an A-6 aircraft will permit the Navy to assess which ILAAS elements, and which system organizations of these elements, will optimize the attack delivery capability of the various aircraft now, or to be, in the force structure. Included are weapon delivery equipments such as displays, computer programs and controls, and navigational information which aid the pilot in his mission. The A-6 test bed aircraft will allow us to adapt the system to other improvements in attack aircraft weapon effectiveness such as the interim arm, and to evaluate features required for future fighter/attack avionics systems. The installation will be configured to allow assessment of ILAAS as either a single or dual crew system. The in our fiscal year 1968 program will continue flight testing and the planning for utilization of the system in attack aircraft. (A film was shown.) This film clip is a simulation of the manner in which the presentation in the ILAAS system will aid the pilot in a single pilot aircraft to attack a target. Commander HANSEN. It requires a few words. The pilot would acquire the target visually. In this case it is a bridge. The center circle, he moves onto the target and depresses the engagement button on the stick, starting the computer and from this point the pilot is free to maneuver the aircraft while the computer maintains a bombing solution. The little airplane symbol which you see moving back and forth gives the pilot his reference position, and it is necessary for him to return the airplane symbol back to the vertical line before this small horizontal bar engages an intersection with the airplane symbol. At that point the weapon release will be automatic. He is now back on the vertical line, the computer is determining the bomb solution and very shortly the weapon will release. This is a much slower picture than would actually be the case. What we see here would transpire in a matter of in a live mission. It does not matter what dive or glide angle the pilot selects. Once again he has locked the computer on the target and is free to maneuver. The angle here at which he is approaching the target in this run is much steeper, so the situation develops quicker. That is the weapon release point. Mr. FROSCH. This system would take a great deal of the load of working out bombing solutions off the pilot's shoulders and put it on the computer, so that he would be engaged almost entirely in flying the aircraft into the solution and is free to maneuver the aircraft as he approaches the target with the computer keeping track of the bombing solution. It gives him these heads up display cues as to where he is and when he has to refly the aircraft on to the bombing target. Mr. SIKES. Would this permit evasive action before the actual attack? Mr. FROSCH. This permits evasive action between the time he has locked the computer on and the time he must return his little airplane symbol back, and he has the cue of the horizontal line. As long as that has not dropped, he has time. As soon as that starts to fall, he must return the airplane so the little airplane symbol is on the vertical line; otherwise, he is free to maneuver over a wide angle. Mr. SIKES. This could be a great deal of assistance to a pilot. As I mentioned, we will If it proves out in flight test, as we expect, we will then have a new kind of avionics, and we expect it to be a new kind of avionics in maintainability and reliability as well, that we can consider for putting into our attack aircraft. Mr. SIKES. Does this work with gravity bombs only? Mr. FROSCH. No, this works with a variety of weapons, both gravity and propelled weapons. There is a limitation to the number of weapon solutions that can be put into the computer but it has a fair variety. Mr. MINSHALL. What is your time schedule on this for production? Mr. FROSCH. Mr. MINSHALL. What is your estimated date to start production? Mr. FROSCH. Mr. MINSHALL. Is it years ahead? Mr. FROSCH. We are proposing to test this and be sure that it in fact works before we want to specify a production. This is a fairly elaborate and development. Mr. SIKES. Is it being designed for a specific aircraft? of somewhere around cost of this system. the total buy airplanes. It is difficult to amortize the Mr. MINSHALL. We are talking about Admiral MICHAELIS. To get it in an airplane Mr. FROSCH. The target fleet support element supports improvements to aerial target systems used in training and in test and evaluation of air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles. Primarily involved are the BQM-34 FIREBEE and AQM-37 high-speed drones, obsolete jet aircraft converted for use as targets, and the towing, launching and radio control equipment used with the various systems. In fiscal year 1967 we have undertaken to convert obsolete T-33 jet aircraft into drones to supplement our dwindling supply of QF-9 targets. The requested for this element in fiscal year 1968 will provide funding for that conversion and also for continuation of development and flight test of the BQM-34E, a supersonic, high-altitude version of the FIREBEE. Our exploratory development programs in budget activity 2 are primarily contained in two elements: (1) airborne surveillance and navi |