General MAXSON. Sir, the way that this will work is that you can through software programing simulate the flight dynamics of either aircraft in the same cockpit. We can, through software changes, make it seem that you are in either of the aircraft, regardless of the cockpit one uses, and we can make changes in the pilot's feel system, if they think it is necessary. We can change the instrumentation too. Senator GOLDWATER. Do you consider 2360 a high priority program? General MAXSON. Yes, we do. It will give the visual capability to two of our front line combat aircraft trainers which will materially contribute to combat readiness of the forces. Senator GOLDWATER. Yet, you took funds from project 2360 to support the F-15 PEP 2,000 request. General MAXSON. Yes, that is so. If I could, I will furnish that for the record. Those funds were excess at the time because the 2360 program, as you know, was delayed in getting underway. Because of the delay, there were funds that were excess. The PEP 2,000 on the F-15 is also high priority because of combat effectiveness, but I do think the visual systems are high priority and those funds were only used in reprograming because they were excess. We could not get the visual system underway as soon as we had hoped. Mr. OLD. In support of your statement, General Maxson, you did at that time have the conflict over the foreign contractor participation. That was one of the reasons those funds became excess. How was that issue resolved, do you recall? Do you remember the issue was one of confidentiality, whether or not a foreign source could bid on the proposals. General MAXSON. Yes; just very briefly. A determination was made by the Secretary of Defense's Office that we could not allow foreign participation as the prime contractor in that effort, and the underlying reason for that was, as you suggested, confidentiality of some of the data that were necessary to perform the development and acquisition. Mr. OLD. What did we finally decide to do, just eliminate the foreign competitor? General MAXSON. As prime contractor, that is correct, and went ahead with the effort on the first of March. Senator GOLDWATER. That finishes my questions. I do have some questions marked R. We will submit these for the record and particularly elaborate on that last question that was asked by Mr. Old about the reprograming of funds away from 2360 in more detail. General MAXSON. I will be happy to furnish that. [The information follows:] FUNDS REPROGRAMED FROM PROJECT 2360 Project 2360 was delayed for approximately nine months while the foreign participation issue was resolved. This delay caused 2360 to slip, which, in turn, precluded going on contract per the original schedule. This allowed $1.26M of fiscal year 1977 funds to be reprogrammed from Project 2360 to PEP 2000 for the F-15. Senator GOLDWATER. I think on the schedule, the Army is scheduled next. Dr. DAVIS. I think if it makes no difference, the next speaker we have is Comdr. Giles Norrington of the U.S. Navy. Senator GOLDWATER. You are the boss. Commander NORRINGTON. Is that a remark for the record, Senator? [Laughter.] STATEMENT OF COMDR. GILES R. NORRINGTON, AVIATION TRAINING PROGRAM COORDINATOR, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (AIR WARFARE) Commander NORRINGTON. Good morning, sir. From the audience, too, I recognize a lot of faces out there. Industry is very well represented this morning. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify this morning, but I think far more important than that is to express our Navy's gratitude for continued support of a strong and welltrained naval aviation arm. Naval aviation simulation drives at two things with tertiary benefits. The first thing we go for as a primary consideration is fleet readiness, and we feel that flight simulation is one of the areas in which we can best attain fleet readiness. Aviation safety is another consideration that we feel must be absolutely dominant. There are statistics which indicate that if a good training suite is on site when a new aircraft is introduced, there will be a somewhat lower pilot factor accident rate. General Maxson and Dr. Davis and, if I may quote Colonel Lauder, have said trainers allow us to train to destruction. Each of the four of us has agreed that one of the primary things that we can do is train in emergency procedures that you just cannot safely practice any place else. The tertiary benefit I mentioned is one that usually receives the greatest amount of attention when we are undergoing review, and that is flying hour savings. We cannot ignore it; it is a fact of life. We have lost flight simulators in budget review on this basis. That is a situation with which we are learning to live, and what we are attempting to do is to qualify or train at the best possible level and quantity flight hour savings at the safest possible level, The T-2 flight simulator is more or less representative of the state of the art today. I would like to take us to a position where we are, walk us through the R.D.T. & E. program that is supporting future acquistion, and then talk about the 1979 acquistion and modification. program for the Navy. The T-2C is representative of the state of the art because it is a multiple cockpit, independently operable training system that is very widely used in undergraduate training. Another fine example of state of the art is one I think the Senator has flown, that is the MACS IV flight simulator out at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis. The F-18 cockpit that you see depicted here reflects the type of digital technology that we are now looking at for future aircraft buys. The quality of the imagery is the quality of the imagery that we will see in our air combat maneuvering simulator. I say that with absolute confidence. And the reason I can say that is MACS IV was in fact patterned on portions of the Navy specification for the air combat maneuvering simulator. We are happy with that relationship. Given the background of mission, readiness, safety, and as a tertiary benefit flying hour programs, as the reasons why we but flight simulation, I would like to step directly into our 6.2 exploratory development program. FISCAL YEAR 1979.-TRAINING AND HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY (Training Device Technology) Generalized VTOL Math Model Beneficiaries: H-3, H-60B (LAMPS MK III), V/STOL Series, H-53, H-46. Wide Angle Nonprogramed Visual Display Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All Systems (Army Funded). Motion Drive Signals for Flight Simulators Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All Systems Employing Motion Platforms. Information Storage and Display Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All Systems. Pilot Helmet Mounted Display Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All Systems. Low Level Daytime CIG Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All CIG Systems. Automated Data Base for CIG Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All CIG Systems. Cost-Effective Simulation in Flight Training Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All Systems. Automated Adaptive Training for Landing Signals Officer (LSO) Beneficiaries: All Carrier-Based Air Communities. Laser Air-to-Ground Weapon Delivery Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, Tactical Air. Airborne ASW Target Vehicle Beneficiaries: Navy ASW Community. Simulation Computing Techniques Beneficiaries: Tri-Service, All Systems. Essentially, this is a technical base development program. We are looking at some very interesting programs that have very wide applications. I think the most interesting are the generalized V/TOL math model that will find its way into most helicopters and V/STOL flight systems at some time in the future. Regarding the wide-angle visual system, somebody asked what is a nonprogramed visual system. That means I do not have to fly over a specific model board. I do not have to fly over a photograph, twisting the photograph to make it seem as though I were seeing it a certain way. The Army is funding this program and the Navy is participating with them as an interested observer. There are still more elements. These have been provided for the record, as a part of my prepared statement. |