Government Use of Satellite Communications

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff administrator; Douglas G. Dahlin, counsel; and J. P. Carlson, minority staff. Mr. HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOLIFIELD

Today, the Military Operations Subcommittee commences hearings on satellite communications from the standpoint of Government operational programs and procurement of services from carrier sources. Events in this interesting and complex field are moving quickly and in several directions. On June 16, 1966, the first installment of what the Department of Defense calls its initial defense communications satellite program (IDCSP) was successfully placed in orbit.

I may say that our subcommittee has a great interest in the military satellite program; in fact, we tried to give it a little encouragement in its formative stages. The hearing record of our subcommittee on the earlier phases of the military program is quite extensive, and we summed it up in House Report No. 178 (89th Cong., 1st sess.), which recorded our view of the importance of a military capability in this field, and our recommendations for achieving it. We expect, in the course of these hearings, to get a progress report from the Department of Defense on the matters covered in earlier reports.

The Department of Defense, I am told, accounts for about 75 percent of all the communications by Government users. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that President Kennedy designated the Secretary of Defense as Executive Agent for the National Communications System (NCS), which is being developed to serve the Government agencies which are substantial users of communications. Secretary McNamara's responsibilities in this capacity are carried out, as I understand it, by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Administration, Mr. Solis Horwitz. At the same time, the Defense Communication Agency, directed by Lt. Gen. Alfred D. Starbird, is designated the

Manager for the NCS, concerned more directly with the planning and operational aspects. We will hear Mr. Horwitz and General Starbird today, and also Mr. Thomas F. Rogers, Deputy Director (Electronics and Information Systems), who is representing Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director Research and Engineering. Mr. Rogers will review the technical programs and progress in satellite communications.

The Department of Defense is, of course, a large buyer of communications services as well as an operator. With Secretary McNamara's approval, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense both have entered into contracts with the Communications Satellite Corp. (Comsat), to obtain satellite communications services-in NASA's case for the Apollo program, and in DOD's case for circuits between Hawaii and the Philippines, Japan and Thailand. We examined rather carefully the circumstances of NASA's procurement in hearings of January 1966 and House Report No. 1340 (89th Cong., 2d sess.), which our committee submitted to the Congress on March 21, 1966. We will discuss these procurements further in the course of the hearings, with testimony from both DOD and NASA.

These procurements, at least the Defense portion, have not been free of controversy. Several international carriers were active bidders against Comsat for supplying the services, although they would have to rely on Comsat for the satellite segment; that is to say, Comsat's competitors, who also are important stockholders, are compelled, in the present order of things, to buy from Comsat if they would sell to the Government.

In the midst of all these complications, the Federal Communications Commission published its decision on "authorized users" of Cosmat services. If I read this opinion correctly, Cosmat, as a carrier's carrier, is supposed to deal with the carriers instead of the Government, except in very special circumstances.

A Comptroller General's decision, following on the heels of the FCC ruling, said in effect that there was no legal barrier to a direct contract between the Defense Department and Comsat, but that FCC still had to authorize Comsat performance of the contract. This is a very interesting situation, and of course we shall inquire into it and try to get a better understanding of its implications. Undoubtedly several of the carrier companies will want to be heard on this subject.

Our hearing schedule, which must be tentative and adjusted to legislative exigencies and to accommodate witnesses, is as follows: Week of August 15:

Hearings on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, the mornings. Witnesses from the Department of Defense and the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

Week of August 22:

Hearings on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Witnesses are the Director of Telecommunications Management in the Executive Office of the President, Department of State, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Federal Aviation Agency.

Week of August 29:

Hearings on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Comsat will lead off that week. We will also hear the Federal Communications Commission, A.T. & T., and other carrier witnesses. Now we will proceed with our schedule.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Chairman, if it is satisfactory with the Defense witnesses, we will ask Mr. Rogers to come forward first and give us a review of the technical programs.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Rogers, are you present?

Mr. ROGERS, Yes; I am, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Come forward and bring anyone you wish with

you.

Mr. Rogers, you will identify your associate for the record, please. STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. ROGERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING (ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIE L. MOORE, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (COMMAND AND CONTROL), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING FOR ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. ROGERS. This is Mr. Willie L. Moore, Jr., Deputy Assistant Director, Command and Control, in my office, the Office of the Deputy Director of Defense, Research and Engineering for Electronics and Information Systems.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You may proceed.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity of appearing again before this committee to give you a progress report on Department of Defense satellite communications research and development activities.

A number of matters of interest to this committee have taken place since Dr. Foster, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, discussed this subject with you in January of this year. I expect that other witnesses from the individual military departments, now scheduled to appear before you later during these hearings, will describe their relevant activities in detail to you. Today, I would like to summarize:

Our experience to date with both the Syncom microwave repeaters and the initial defense communications satellite project-the IDCSP-satellite repeaters.

Our work in the advanced defense communications satellite project the ADCSP-leading toward a fully operational system.

The status of our tactical satellite communications program, and certain other related activities.

The total of these efforts forms a comprehensive research and development program directed to the effective application of satellite communications technology to critical military communications needs. Its end objective is the provision of those tough, flexible, secure, and reliable operational communications which are required by the Department to conduct military operations in support of national objectives. This satellite communication R. & D. program is directed to the satisfaction of both strategic and tactical communication needs, and it

continues to develop within the context of our overall military communications needs.

As this committee knows, there are certain fundamental differences between military communications needs and civilian-commercial communications needs. In general terms, within the Department of Defense extremely tough and reliable but relatively low capacity service must be provided between a very large number of relatively smalloften mobile terminals, while most commercial needs are usually best served by higher capacity service between a lesser number of larger terminals.

Further, we have several particular concerns: protection against deliberate attempts to disrupt our circuits, their security, and the ability to furnish prompt and reliable communications between points that cannot always be predetermined.

I should also point out that the characteristics of a tactical communications system differ fundamentally from those of a long distance, point-to-point military system. Tactical operations call for communications circuits established with simple, highly mobile, equipments used by the deployed operating forces which permit literally hundreds of stations in the battle area to communicate with great flexibility and reliability on a random basis; a point-to-point network is considerably more fixed and is characterized by relatively higher continuous volume and a tighter network control.

The committee will recall that, in April 1965, the Department of Defense assumed responsibility for operation of NASA's synchronous satellite repeaters Syncom II and III. As you are well aware, Syncom II and III are developmental statellites and were not intended for long-term operation use.

But more recently, these satellites have been on station over the Indian and Pacific Oceans, respectively, and have been used both for R. & D. and operational test purposes and for emergency operational communications along routes including Hawaii, the Philippines, southeast Asia, and Africa.

Syncom circuits have been used in support of the Gemini program; however, the principal current use of these circuits is to provide alternate, albeit quite límited, routes into southeast Asia. For example, during the first week in August this year Syncom II was scheduled for over 90 hours of operations and Syncom III for about 120 hours. Additionally, last week Syncom III was scheduled for about 10 hours of operation to help check out the installation of a Navy terminal on the U.S.S. Annapolis; we expect that Navy time allocations will increase as this terminal becomes fully operational. Syncom III normally provides a single voice channel plus 16 teletype channels and Syncom II normally provides 16 teletype channels.

Turning now to the initial defense communications satellite project, I am sure that this committee appreciates that I am gratified to report a very successful first launch on June 16 of this year. You will recall that, on August 8, 1964, the President announced plans for a Defense satellite communications system and the Secretary of Defense directed the U.S. Air Force to initiate the space segment of this program.

In October 1964, after a careful review of development plans, the Air Force was authorized to proceed with actual development

« Previous Continue »

Books

Government Use of Satellite Communications: Hearings, Eighty ..., Volumes 74-77