« PreviousContinue »
If you look at the breakout of the total strategic C3 area and see where it is going, here again are the three main parts of the C3 Triad, again totaling a 1.6 request for 1981.
If you look at it again by these accounts, it is as shown here.
A C31 ASSESSMENT
-DEFENSE GUIDANCE OF SECDEF
BY BUDGET REQUEST
- TO INCREASE SURVIVABILITY/ER'D!JRANCE
INTEGRATED WITH FORCES PACKAGE
- STRENGTHEN DETERRENCE
- PERMIT TRADEOFFS FOR ADDITIONAL WEAPONS
NOT ALL THAT SIMPLE
If I were to give you an assessment, I think the priority is recognized, it is certainly recognized in defense guidance and by the President in statements he has made. We have the modernization program well underway. It is well integrated into the force's package, especially using the nuclear weapons master plan as the vehicle.
We believe again an enduring and surviving system is an important aspect to strengthening the deterrent and providing overall stability. This term “escalation control” means you must be able to absolutely control weapons. We have to have a countermeasure capability.
The problems are fixable, but it is not going to be simple and it is not going to be done overnight.
Nuclear weapons master plan: CʻI/forces/policy/logistics and reconnaissance systems review.
North American Air Defense plan: U.S./Canada cooperation and programmatic implications.
Conventional air/land capabilities : second echelon interdiction and JSTARS/ JTFP/JTACMS/JSEAD.
Lastly, there are some other management initiatives underway. In the master plan, as I mentioned, this last year we added logistics to it. We did a review of all intelligence systems and reconnaissance systems. It has been folded into the nuclear weapons master plan. The North American defense plan was presented to Congress last year. As I mentioned, we are looking out to the year 2000 in that plan.
There is another major initiative having to do with CSI in the conventional air-land battle capability. That is it. Senator WARNER. Thank you. Admiral Tomb ?
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. PAUL D. TOMB, VICE DIRECTOR,
JOINT STRATEGIC CONNECTIVITY STAFF
Admiral TOMB. What I wonld like to do is show you three slides which will be a summary of what General Davis presented to you and submitted for the record.
I will break it down in summary analysis, tactical warning, attack assessment, EAM dissemination and command centers.
Chart deleted.] Mr. Latham has reviewed what programs we have ongoing. This is our summary of what that presentation is that shows the problems as they exist and what we are doing about them, including the lack of the worldwide tactical warning coverage as Mr. Latham suggested.
We do have a PAVE PAWS in the Southeast and Southwest in the program years and we will be studying right now whether we [deIeted). We do have [deleted] improvement which we also address.
The time and tactical warning information [deleted). We do have a jam resistant communications system going into effect [deleted] which will link [deleted].
So, we do have a capability to penetrate a jammed environment.
The GWEN system will go into effect, which will connect across the continent at approximately 35 stations, which will be in operation in late 1981, early 1985. The MILSTAR system will be our backbone. It is a technically oriented system which we need to get up. We have gotten good support from this committee in the past and we hope to receive that support in the future.
The mobile ground stations will relieve us of our dependency on getting our [deleted].
There is in the R&D effort in the Air Force advanced warning system which is ill-defined right now, but there is money in the program.
The survivable satellite C3 system will relieve us of that [deleted] we rely on at Sunnyvale which is a fixed geographic point. It will give us the capability to control our satellites [deleted]. [Deleted] in the IONDS system which has been addressed previously in the command center area. We see [deleted].
The Air Force does have a program right now to put secure voice on the AFSATCOM which is a rider on the FLTSAT satellite. That will give us [deleted] in the right direction.
There is a request in to study a capability to have a continental secure voice capability in near term and again the MILSTAR program will address the long-range, long-term capability which we have to support. [Deleted.]
At the national levels we are working on EMP protection upgrade capability. Much of this is done with the commanders-in-Chief initiative funds. When necessary we go in and get funds from the various Services.
There is a mobile command center effort underway now under the direction of the Army which has sufficient funding in it right now. [Deleted.]
That will carry over into CINC's capabilities, for both EMP upgrade and WWABNCP.
There is funding to upgrade the capability of the communications system in the WWABYCP aircraft. There is a program in the Air Force to look and try to determine a suitable airframe for WWABNCP replacement.
There is an effort, addressed before by Mr. Latham and will be addressed by both Admiral Nagler and General Randolph, on what we are doing to harden tactical warning systems. We are working very hard to try to get interoperability with our 616A and verdin communications systems. We now have proven the technical interoperability of those two systems. We have got the MEECN master plan approved so that we can go out with the Services and the CINC's providing procedures so that system will work and that is really our surrivable link right now.
Admiral Nagler will address the ELF. The GWEN program we feel must be married with the AACE program which is a hardening of the wing command post in the Air Force. The GWEN program will give us capability to transmit [deleted].
I believe Admiral Nagler will address the E-6 in the future. You will see that MILSTAR is a heavy player in everything we are doing in the connectivity arena. We have to go forward with the MILSTAR program.
I think the rest of those systems will be addressed in the following presentation here, the ERCS replacement; they are looking at an ERCS emergency rocket communications system. We are looking at a mobile capability to put up a rocket communications system augmenting the Minuteman capability we now maintain at Whiteman Missile Base.
That is all I have to say. I am ready to answer any questions.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. BERNARD P. RANDOLPH, U.S. AIR FORCE, DIRECTOR, SPACE SYSTEMS AND COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION
General RANDOLPU. May I show you a couple of charts?
General RANDOLPH, I just want to point out a little bit more the details of the MILSTAR. This shows the budget request we have for fiscal 1984. This is for the spacecraft only portion. The terminals are in another line.
The point I want to make is that we have settled on a configuration which will be seven spacecraft as part of the baseline configuration with spares. Those satellites will be highly survivable. They have nuclear survivability, laser hardening and will [deleted] have high AJ protection in the extremely high frequency range. That is 44 gigaHertz and 20 gigaHertz.
It is a highly survivable platform and I think will satisfy the requirements that have been identified by Admiral Tomb.
This chart has terminal work. Although it says AFSATCOM, for simplicity's sake to make sure those terminals the Air Force is specifically responsible for in the MILSTAR area are being carried in that particular line.
The Air Force will handle the airborne portion of the terminal development work.
I am prepared to address any questions that you may have on the programs.
Senator WARNER. Senator Exon, would you like to lead off for a change.
Senator Exon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I would like to congratulate all of you for a very excellent presentation. It is very informative. I would like to have a response to a question from both Admiral Tomb and Admiral Nagler with regard to another excellent briefing that we had from General Davis this morning, with regard to his activities.
One of the charts that they showed us was how we would anticipate where an attack might come from and one of the matters that we spent some time on, of course, was the Soviet submarines off our shores.
I did not get into this question with them becaus? I thought I would save it for you. I assume that those are noisy Soviet submarines. Are they?
Admiral Nagler. Yes, sir, relatively speaking, [deleted] yes, sir.
Senator Exox. Are they noisy enough so that we know where they are, how close they are to our shores? Do we have them pretty well identified at all times as to the general, if not a specific, area in which they are operating ?
Admiral NAGLER. [Deleted.]
Admiral Toms. We have some problems at various times, Senator Exon. [Deleted.]
The Soviets are very astute submariners and they are learning rapidly.
Senator WARNER. Senator Exon, one of the advantages that the United States has is at certain choke points. [Deleted.]
In a wartime scenario we have to assume that [deleted). Then down to the geographic constraints of the choke points and the noise.
[Deleted.] Maybe you want to emphasize that because I don't want to leave the impression of the Senator in the record that we have an [deleted] system.
Admiral NAGLER. I certainly hope I didn't leave that impression. The Soviets have made great progress over the years [deleted). The more progress they make in this area the more difficult it is for us [deleted]. So it is not a simple solution. The oceans are not transparent.
Senator WARNER. Uso they can launch dockside almost all of their systems now under their targeting doctrine; is that correct?
Admiral Tomb. [Deleted.] However, Senator Exon is talking about those ballistic missile submarines which happen to be near our shores.
One of our other problems—is the advances they have made, as you well know, in oceanographic research. They are learning more and more about such things as the [deleted] to better operate their submarines in an optimum fashion.
They pose new problems all the time to us and we are trying to stay ahead of them. I think it would be better to address the problem with Admiral McDonald because he deals with it daily.
Let me ask one followup question. Is their submarine forces near our shores stabilizing? Is it going up, remaining the same or going down? Admiral NAGLER. [Deleted.] I would say normally it [deleted].
Senator Exox. Do they stay generalıy about the same distance from our shores?
Admiral NAGLER. [Deleted.]
Admiral NACLER. I would like to take that for the record because I haven't looked at that in that detail. [Deleted.]
With your permission, I would like to take that for the record. Senator Exon. Thank you. [The information follows:]
YANKEE SSBN OPERATIONS
Admiral NAGLER. [Deleted.]
Senator Exox. I am particularly concerned about, and I tried to pick up what I could out of the presentation that you made, C3 and about our ability to communicate after a strike.
Admiral Nagler, if you could take whatever time you think is necessary to amplify in layman terms as much as you can some information to the subcommittee in regard to a chronological breakdown of how the national command authority would communicate with and execute the single integrated operational plan with respect to our Poseidon and our Trident submarine force; if possible, provide a breakdown of the future plan for reconstituting the Navy's strategic ( for a post attack phrase.
In other words, we keep talking about how we are going to respond. Could you amplify on that some and what initiatives the Navy believes are essential to provide enduring strategic (% capability?
Those are some of the questions that are on my mind. I have tried to give you a broad enough question, so you might take some time to answer it.
The ELF advancements that we are making, how are we doing on that? Are you more sold on that program than you have been in the past? Are things going along all right on the ELF program?
Admiral NAGLER. Senator Exon, I will try to take each question one at a time if I could.
Senator Exon. Yes.