Page images
PDF
EPUB

the 14 required for test and tactical development of the jet seaplane concept. Because of a change in tactical concepts the Air Force decided to drop the decoy missile, Goose. Similarly, the Army dropped the Dart missile because of failure of the system to meet anticipated capabilities.

The reason for canceling the Navy F8U-3 all-weather fighter is well known to you. You will recall that the Congress directed the Department of Defense to make a selection between the F8U-3 and the F4H-1, both of which are all-weather fighters designed for the same mission. Concurrent development of these two aircraft has been carried through preliminary evaluations. Both aircraft demonstrated outstanding flight performance. The F4H-1 has been chosen for procurement because it demonstrated greater weapon system effectiveness, better safety of operations, greater mission versatility and greater growth potential.

MISSILE PROGRAMS FUNDED

Specifically, the fiscal year 1960 budget provides increased funds for such advanced missile systems as the NIKE-ZEUS, PERSHING, POLARIS, TITAN, and MINUTEMAN. Funds are also provided to continue production of the ATLAS, BOMARC, HAWK, NIKEHERCULES, TALOS, TERRIER, TARTAR, and other missile systems. A final increment of funds is included in this budget to complete the presently planned production program for JUPITER and THOR. If an early decision is made, we can extend this production for the needs of our allies over and above the eight squadrons presently planned. In this event additional production would be financed by direct purchase by these allies or through the Military Assistance Program.

MANNED BOMBERS

Recognizing that manned bombers will continue to be an important element of our retaliatory forces for some years to come, the fiscal year 1960 budget includes funds for the procurement of additional B-52 intercontinental jet bombers, B-58 supersonic medium bombers, and the supporting KC-135 jet tankers. This will permit us to start replacing some of the older B-47 medium jet bombers. Funds are included for an additional quantity of the HOUNDDOG air-to-ground missile for use by the B-52. Provision is also made for the continued development of the B-70, a very high performance intercontinental jet bomber, and for the development of advanced penetration aids, such as a new air-to-ground ballistic missile which could be employed by the B-52 and B-58 as well as the B-70. Successful development of such a missile would provide a greatly improved followon for the HOUNDDOG, thus further extending the useful life of the B-52 as well as enhancing the operational capabilities of the B-58 and B-70.

MANNED INTERCEPTORS

Although we do not plan to place orders for additional manned interceptors for the Air Force in 1960, we will be buying substantial quantities of NIKE-HERCULES, BOMARC, and HAWK groundto-air missiles, TALOS, TERRIER, and TARTAR ship-to-air mis

siles and a number of different types of improved air-to-air missiles for aircraft already in units or on order. Thus, our air defense capabilities will continue to be strengthened during the period ahead. At the same time funds are provided in the budget for the continued development of the new F-108 all-weather manned interceptor system. This long-range, Mach 3 fighter will be able to meet an aircraft or aerodynamic missile attack far beyond our own borders.

The budget also includes funds for additional tactical aircraft for the Air Force and fighters and attack aircraft, including the supersonic A3J, for the Navy and Marine Corps-together with a variety of helicopters, trainers, and cargo aircraft for all the services.

REQUEST FOR ATTACK CARRIER

In developing the shipbuilding program for 1960, very careful consideration has been given to the need for additional modern attack carriers. It is our conclusion that the attack carrier is a vital and unique element of our military strength, especially in many limited war situations. Its worth was clearly demonstrated during the Lebanon and Taiwan difficulties. If we are to continue to deploy strong carrier task forces equipped with modern aircraft, both in the Mediterranean and in the Far Pacific, we must plan for the gradual replacement of the World War II Essex class carriers. These vessels are no longer suitable or safe enough for the employment of certain kinds of high performance aircraft now being delivered to the fleet.

There is no question that nuclear power should greatly enhance the combat capabilities of the carrier; but in view of the fact that the cost is considerably greater roughly $120 million-it would seem to be prudent to gain more experience with the construction of the first nuclear-powered carrier before we commit ourselves to additional ships of this class. For this reason the attack carrier included in this budget is planned to be conventionally powered.

POLARIS SUBMARINES

Another major issue in the shipbuilding program is the rate at which we should build POLARIS submarines. The first six of these submarines, as I mentioned earlier, have already been started. We plan to start three more in 1960, using funds appropriated for fiscal year 1959. Additional funds are included in this budget for the advance procurement of long-leadtime components of 3 more POLARIS submarines, making a total of 12. Actual construction of these latter three will be started early in fiscal year 1961. This will give us a program of three POLARIS submarines in each year 1958-61, without prejudging the number of additional submarines needed thereafter. The POLARIS missile program has been planned accordingly. We believe this is a properly balanced program in relation to our other needs.

SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM

The 1960 shipbuilding program also includes six guided-missile frigates and destroyers, three nuclear-powered attack submarines and eight other vessels. Four submarines originally planned to employ the REGULUS II missile will be continued in the construction program

as nuclear powered attack submarines. Planned for conversion are another guided-missile cruiser and four smaller vessels, and eight destroyers will be extensively modernized in order to extend their useful life by an estimated 8 years. This latter program involves the modernization of armament and electronic equipment, and the rehabilitation of hull and machinery. It is part of a larger, longrange program to extend the useful life of World War II ships and it provides a partial answer to the problem of bloc-obsolescene of the fleet.

Incidentally, this is the initiation of that program, but we would expect if this were initiated it would be considered to be a continuing program for the next several years.

MODERNIZATION OF GROUND FORCE EQUIPMENT

Attention is also given in this budget to the continued modernization of our ground force equipment. Funds are included for tanks, trucks, small arms and ammunition, electronics, and engineer equipment as well as for variety of missiles for employment by troops in the field.

SPACE PROJECTS

Also included in this budget is a substantial sum to continue work on space projects of military interest. Because of the close interrelationship of military and civilian space projects, a full appreciation of the national effort in this area requires consideration not only of the Defense Department program but also of the program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Together, these two programs provide for another sizable increase in effort on space exploration. Particular attention is being given to the development of larger and more powerful rocket engines and to the utilization of satellites for communications, navigation, and other purposes. The defense budget also provides funds for advanced research in such areas as solid propellant chemistry, ballistic missile defense and missile early warning systems.

PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE

The Pacific missile range, under Navy management, is being developed to augment our capability for fulfilling test and training requirements for the IRBM and ICBM programs, satellite vehicles, and a host of other missiles and special devices. This range complements the other two national ranges-Atlantic and White Sands. Each has unique capabilities. The continued development of all three ranges is essential to rapid progress in our missile and space pro

grams.

I might say this Pacific missile range is a very large project. It involves the placing of devices to detect what has happened in the impact areas that are intended for these various missile systems that are fired, and to track with greater effectiveness satellites which can be launched, from the Pacific range as distinct from the Atlantic range. Again the money that is appropriated for fiscal year 1960 should be regarded as only the beginning not quite the beginning, because we have some fiscal year 1958 funds for this purpose. This is quite a

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

program, looking down the road, and I think the committee should understand that as we go along. In fact, we have a briefing the committee may want to see on the Pacific missile range itself.

This range is not to take the place of Patrick Air Force Base at all. We do not plan to equip this range with anything like the extremely sensitive telemetering equipment for the following of experimental type missiles. It is for training purposes, but we still need to find out whether the missiles fired for training purposes impact in the areas intended, and all of this requires quite substantial funds.

NUCLEAR POWERED AIRCRAFT

The nuclear powered aircraft project, because of the unusual amount of public attention it has received in recent weeks, deserves some special mention. This is not a new project. The Department of Defense, jointly with the Atomic Energy Commission, has been working on the development of nuclear propulsion for aircraft for many years. Few people, however, realize the difficult technical problems involved in the development of a militarily useful aircraft of this type. It is not the airframe which presents the difficulty but rather the powerplant. To be militarily useful the propulsion system must have a high power density; that is, it must be powerful and compact and not unduly heavy. Moreover, adequate shielding must be provided to protect the crew and equipment against radiation hazards. In the present state of the art this would require a large and heavy airframe with low performance characteristics. Such an airplane, we believe, would have marginal military value in relation to other systems in operation, in production, or under development for the strategic mission.

We are not unaware of the psychological advantages which might accrue to the nation which first flies a true nuclear powered aircraft. However, after the most thorough consideration of all the factors involved, it is still our judgment that this project should continue to be geared to valid technical and military considerations. The President has, therefore, included in his 1960 budget roughly $150 million, divided about equally between the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission, to carry out this objective. This is approixmately the same amount available for the current fiscal year and brings our planned investment in the development of a nuclear powered aircraft to the significant total of approximately $1 billion.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

I have discussed at some length the need constantly to review and adjust our weapons systems programs to changes in military technology. This is equally true of our military installations. The Department of Defense, since the beginning of the Korean war, has spent a total of about $14 billion for military construction. A large part of this expenditure has gone for the construction of new facilities required by the changing character of our Military Establishment. But we have not always succeeded in eliminating promptly those facilities which became marginal or obsolescent as the result of changes in weapons and forces. Each year the total value of real property which must be supported by the Department of Defense

continues to grow, placing an ever-increasing maintenance and operating burden on the Defense budget.

CLOSING OF INSTALLATIONS

Recognizing the requirements of good management, the military departments, under my direction, have initiated a program to close down and, where feasible, dispose of installations no longer required for efficient operation of our forces. We recently submitted to this committee a report, prepared at your request, summarizing major changes in military installations during the current fiscal year. This report lists for each of the military departments the actions taken to reduce or close out installations, the savings expected to be realized in fiscal years 1959 and 1960, and the number of civilian employees involved. We recognize the hardships that these actions inflict on the affected communities, but we have no alternative if the taxpayers of this Nation are to receive fair value for their dollars invested in defense. With the help of the Congress and the understanding of the public, we propose to continue this effort in fiscal year 1960.

For similar reasons the President's 1960 budget also recommends the sale of Government-owned communication facilities in Alaska. As you know the Departments of the Army and Air Force together with the Department of Comerce have for some years been operating communication "long lines" in Alaska. Now that this former Territory has become a State, it is entirely appropriate that private enterprise should take over the task of furnishing this service, both for the people of the new State and for the Government agencies operating therein.

MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTH

1960 will mark the first year since the end of the Korean war in which no significant reductions in numbers of active duty military personnel will be made. The Department of Defense has followed the policy during these years of reducing military personnel as new and more powerful weapons were integrated into the forces. Although we shall continue the flow of new weapons to our forces during 1960, it seems prudent to keep the forces at about the level planned for the end of the current fiscal year. The Communist policy of deliberately and constantly probing free world positions to test our determination to resist aggression precludes any significant changes in our overseas deployments or in our ready military forces at home during the coming fiscal year. This budget, therefore, provides for an active duty military personnel strength of 2,520,000 at the end of fiscal year 1960- Army 870,000, Navy 630,000, Marine Corps 175,000, and Air Force 845,000. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps strengths are the same as those planned for June 30, 1959, but the Air Force strength is 5,000 less.

ARMY RESERVE AND NATIONAL GUARD

Assistant Secretary Finucane will discuss the manpower programs in greater detail when he appears before this committee at a later date. However, I would like to say a few words at this time about the Army Reserve and Army National Guard reductions recom

« PreviousContinue »