RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR DEFENSE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1961 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Overton Brooks (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This morning to start with I have been handed this note, which is of interest, I am sure, to everybody. NASA reports the Scout vehicle launching. The 12-foot inflatable sphere was successfully launched at 8:05 a.m., Thursday, February 16. All four stages had completed firing as of 8:16. The Johannesburg station acquired a good signal. We are awaiting word from the tracking station in Woomera, Australia for receipt of a signal. It is believed if a good signal is received at the San Diego station, its orbit will be confirmed. It looks good but no confirmation of its orbit has been received as of this time. I think that is of general interest to all the members of the committee and perhaps to the press. The committee is beginning its customary annual review of the national posture in the fields of scientific and astronautic research and development. This committee has been charged with responsibility under the rules of the House for reviewing and reporting on our progress both in the general field of science wherever it is found, and also on space research, development, exploration, and operations in all agencies. In this particular part of our review, we are concentrating on the Department of Defense. Our review of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will come in connection with the authorization hearings. Our review of other agencies and of the work in private industry will come in hearings to be announced at a later time. It is quite appropriate that we open our annual review this year with the Department of Defense because we recognize the military importance of the recent Soviet activities in orbiting very heavy satellites and in launching from orbit a probe toward Venus. The Soviet Union always describes their program as "peaceful," and we hope it is. But we are disturbed that they have consistently placed a heavy blanket of military secrecy around all their rocketry, and indeed around much of the details of their instrumentation as well. The United States is dedicated to peaceful use of outer space. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has the most important mission in this regard, and this committee goes over its authorizations with a fine-toothed comb. But the preservation of 1 peace also depends upon our ability to defend ourselves. This includes early warning of potential attack from enemies, by use of a variety of space techniques; rapid communications via space; accurate navigation in all weather; and many other things as well, still emerging from space research. The Department of Defense is concerned with these space applications, and it is also contributing some of its unique skills to our overall national progress in space. I would be remiss not to stress that this committee is concerned with all science as well as all activities related to space. The Department of Defense makes a notable contribution to our scientific progress, and the witnesses we are going to hear in the next several days will be reporting on these things as well. We have many questions to ask them. We recognize the importance of their efforts, the many benefits which flow to all parts of our economy from these scientific advances. The added problem of a scientific and technological competition across the boards with the Soviet Union merely gives an added urgency to the work in these fields. During the next 4 days of hearings, this committee will hear from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and from each of the servicesthe Army, the Navy, and the Air Force in that order. I have talked with the Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara, and he will appear before this committee early in the week of February 27, the earliest mutually convenient date. Meanwhile, we are starting this morning with Dr. Herbert F. York, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering of the Department of Defense, and with Dr. J. P. Ruina, Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency. John H. Rubel, the Deputy Director of Dr. York's office is also here today, and we are happy to welcome him, too. It is a tribute to the abilities, experience, and dedication of all three of these gentlemen that they have continued in their positions without regard to the change of administration in the executive branch. Dr. York, you always provide his committee with a lucid account of our scientific progress and the policies you support, and we would be happy to have your statement. (The biography of Dr. York is as follows:) BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF DR. HERBERT F. YORK Dr. Herbert Frank York, born in Rochester, N.Y., received his A.B. in physics from the University of Rochester in 1942. After graduating as Phi Beta Kappa scholar with honors, he remained at the university as a teaching assistant and in 1943 obtained his M.S. degree. Later that year, he joined the staff of the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley. Between 1944 and 1945, Dr. York worked on the electromagnetic isotope separation program at the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. Returning to Berkeley, he entered the University of California graduate school, while continuing parttime at the laboratory. In 1949, Dr. York received his Ph.D in physics from the University of California. Later, in 1951, he became a member of the faculty of the physics department of the University of California. In 1950, Dr. York, a coleader with Dr. Hugh Bradner, undertook the design and execution of a major diagnostics experiment for Operation Greenhouse at Eniwetok Proving Ground. In July 1952, when UCRL expanded its research program to include weapons development and other classified programs in applied science, Dr. York was selected to initiate and direct the laboratory program at Livermore, Calif. Under his supervision, the laboratory made major contributions to the varied research programs of the Atomic Energy Commission. Dr. York became an associate director of the University of California Radiation Laboratory and director of the Livermore Laboratory in 1954. Dr. York, on March 15, 1958, became Director of Research, Advanced Research Projects Division of the Institute of Defense Analyses and Chief Scientist of the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Dr. York has served on many governmental advisory committees among these are the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the Army Scientific Advisory Board, and the President's Science Advisory Committee. On December 24, 1958, President Eisenhower appointed Dr. York as Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Dr. York is married to the former Sybil Dunford of Berkeley, Calif. They have three children: Rachel, Cynthia, and David. They reside in Alexandria, Va. Dr. YORK. Shall I proceed with my statement at this time? STATEMENT OF DR. HERBERT F. YORK, DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Dr. YORK. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear again before this committee to discuss the research, development, test and evaluation program of the Department of Defense. I shall outline for you our overall program, and then go into our space related programs in somewhat greater detail. Broadly speaking, our program is designed to provide the Armed Forces with the most modern weapons and supporting systems that modern technology can furnish. The total amount of money going into defense research and engineering is about $512 billion. That sum is made up of approximately $4 billion in the R.D.T. & E. budget line items of the three services and ARPA plus about $1.5 billion which is carried in the Air Force procurement account but which supports programs still in the development, test or evaluation phases. In order to understand the program better, it is helpful to break it down into a number of categories. In none of the discussions immediately following have I attempted to be exhaustive, but rather have attempted to point up only the major highlights in each area. STRATEGIC WEAPONS This category includes such items as B-52 improvement, the development of the B-70 which is a Mach 3 aircraft of intercontinental range, further improvements and tests of the Atlas and Titan liquid. fueled intercontinental missiles, development of the solid fueled Minuteman ICBM, and development of the Polaris missile system, with particular emphasis now going into the long range version of that missile. Also included is the Skybolt program, whose purpose is the development of a long-range air launched ballistic missile which can be delivered, for example, by the B-52 aircraft. A new R. & D. program of growing importance in this field is aimed at the development of penetration aids for ballistic missiles so that, whatever a potential enemy may do in the field of antimissile defense, we will be always able to insure successful penetration of our warheads. In addition, our nuclear submarine development program contributes directly to our strategic capability. AIR DEFENSE. In the field of air defense we are continuing the major programs which have been underway for some time. These include the NikeZeus program of the Army and the Defender program of ARPA. The Nike-Zeus program is aimed at the development and test of a specific type of terminal defense against missiles. The Defender program, by way of contrast, is a research and development program aimed at increasing our knowledge concerning all aspects of the antimissile problem which could conceivably be of use in helping to solve this most difficult and important problem. The BMEWS and the Midas satellite program also come under this heading. Midas is for the purpose of increasing the time of warning we would have in the event of a missile attack as well as increasing the scope of geographical coverage for such warning. Work continues also on development of air-to-air missiles, ground-to-air missiles, and ship-to-air missiles for the purpose of protecting both the continent and our advanced forces in more limited but also more exposed areas. UNDERSEA WARFARE In this area are included numerous programs aimed at improving our present capabilities with respect to detection, identification, and kill of submarines for the purpose of protecting our continent against a possible Polaris-type threat and to protect our fleets and shipping against destruction in forward areas. Our programs in the application of nuclear power to submarines and ships propulsion also contribute to this area. TACTICAL WARFARE This is a field in which the number and variety of pertinent R. & D. programs is truly bewildering. Under this category we include the Davy Crockett, and the missiles A and B, Pershing, Redeye, Mauler, and Hawk. Also included is work on improved high explosive warheads and on chemical and biological weapons including the munitions for this type of item. Programs to improve mobility involve programs to reduce equipment weight, to reduce logistical demands, and programs to develop new transport vehicles such as the Goer, and the V/STOL type mobility and assault aircraft. This area also includes the development of tactical command and control systems, such as the marine tactical data system, as well as Army, Navy, and Air Force programs where it is our objective to exploit to the fullest the modern techniques of automation. Also in this area are such aircraft as the A2F and the Air Force STOL program and the development of modern fire control systems and armament for these and other tactical aircraft. SUPPORTING SYSTEMS In addition to the various types of systems and equipments described above, the DOD is also developing numerous systems which can best be described as being in general support of the defense effort in such fields as communications, intelligence and surveillance, logistical support, general command and control systems, and so forth. Among these are the Advent satellite, which is a communication relay |