Изображения страниц

through a 34% increase in our productivity since 1972. This was achieved through significant improvements in technology and by eliminating duplicative efforts of the previously independent organizations of the Military Departments.


Paper products, though generally tailored to air, sea or ground applications, are produced through similar production processes, are commonly used by all forces, and are particularly important to joint operations. For example the Joint Operations Graphic (JOG) is a 1:250,000 scale chart produced in both air and ground editions to facilitate interoperability of combined air, land and naval forces. Similarly DMA integrates topographic and nautical information to build Combat Charts for combined naval and land warfare operations. DMA's standard maps and charts include 40 thousand different topographic maps, 12 thousand aeronautical charts, and 10 thousand nautical charts.

while paper products are a mainstay, one-half of DMA's resources are used to produce digital products. The new "smart" weapon systems like the Pershing II and air, sea, and land based cruise missiles, have guidance systems that reduce vulnerability and increase accuracy by using DMA digital data to fly and correct their course and home on a target. Tomorrow's smart weapons will need both greater accuracy in DMA digital products and increased information content. To support peacetime training, DMA provides digital terrain and feature data for trainers and simulators used by all the Services. This data provides for realistic radar and visual simulations that significantly increase training proficiency.


The increasing transition to smart weapon systems makes the Unified and Specified Commanders more dependent on DMA products. To meet this challenge, DMA is now conducting an extensive MC&G production conversion program--called the DMA Exploitation Modernization Program (EMP). It is truly a conversion program--not just modernization. A change in DMA's primary source material is the driving factor. In the 1990s, EMP will be absolutely essential to DMA's ability to support the U&S Commands. Without it, maps and charts cannot be produced. DMA's mandatory EMP is expected to achieve several goals. In addition to adapting to the new source, it will increase accuracy while reducing production calendar time up to 75% and production costs up to 50%. It will increase compatibility among products. It will ensure more responsive DMA support during crisis situations, with better tailored products, especially over Third-World areas, where DMA map coverage is often limited. It will hasten the completion of first-time coverage of required maps and charts. It will allow more timely and comprehensive maintenance of DMA's standard products. Most importantly, it will allow DMA to accommodate requirements for new or modified products faster and at minimal cost.


DMA is professional people using modern equipment to produce the best MC&G products possible for one reason--deterrence. DMA is committed to this mission, because our products are absolutely essential to operational military forces.

[ocr errors]

Mr. NICHOLS. A quarter of our committee has reviewed this legislation to completely do away with the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. The Secretary of the Navy supports those measures. The other service Secretaries and all the service Chiefs have advised us against deleting these particular Agencies. What is your opinion?

Mr. LATHAM. I believe Mr. Weinberger has submitted a letter on that to the Congress and feels strongly, and I support that, that that would cause real chaos. I have had experience with both those Agencies, especially on the contractor's side. I was in industry for a long number of years before I came to this job, and I think the DCĂA is a valuable agency.

I think you could again make a story, just like we have done here, about fragmentation and putting it back into the services, yes; you could probably still work along. But I think it would, to use John Lehman's terms (he keeps worrying about the "bureaucracy'), require the creation of a Navy bureaucracy to do the same function for his contracts. I don't think he would take one single person out of the Navy to do that. We would end up, I think, needing more people and lacking coordination across the logistics complex. You have seen the problems we have had, and we have had some problems, but we have routed them out ourselves in areas such as spare parts. So I just don't think it would be a very good idea, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. You have all spoken about the responsiveness of these Agencies to the unified and specified commanders. Mr. Nichols, however, asked a question about maps that were available on Grenada and communications that were available. One of the major criticisms of the Agencies, as they are structured today, is that they are not sufficiently responsive to combat needs. Now, the service Chiefs made a strong pitch at our last hearing that they were responsive to the CINC's, that Grenada had been a success despite some operational problems.

It is difficult to take issue with the Chiefs as to the specifics of what happened on Grenada. But I do think you could take issue based on the ideas that have been expressed here. We weren't really ready to interoperate before the Grenada planning started. There were communications problems. This committee and this subcommittee have heard about Grenada for years, before the U.S. intervention. Yet, if I understood you correctly, you had a map that didn't even have the runway on it that the Cubans had been building for years. That runway, to us, seems like a very high priority thing. It was a major factor in the concern of the administration about Grenada.

What I am leading up to is that there may possibly be some grounds for argument, that perhaps the users of your products need more input to your Agencies. Let me ask several questions about some measures that the subcommittee is considering. It is considering, for example, having the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Review Agency charters periodically to assure they emphasize the combat support missions. Do you find anything wrong with that?

Mr. LATHAM. That would be fine to do that. In fact, the charter for the Defense Mapping Agency is right now undergoing minor re


visions to reflect some new reporting procedures, and so on, and things like that, and the Joint Chiefs are involved in that. So the charters are, in fact, periodically reviewed. The Defense Communications Agency charter written in the late seventies, but it's a charter, because of the transfer of certain responsibilities back and forth between JCS and DCA and OSD, that was revised several times. I think it has been revised as recently as 1984 for the latest version of the charter. I wouldn't have any problem with that at all.

Let me comment on your general thrust, though. The Defense Communications System that General Powers manages, I don't know how anything could be more responsive than having a CINC or some officer, wherever he is in the world, be able to pick up a phone, a secure phone in most instances today, and make a phone call to any place he wanted and be assured that the phone call is going to get through. Now, we can do that today, I will adm under peacetime conditions without a lot of stress in the syste. without any trouble whatsoever. We have a system as good as the AT&T network we are part of. In terms of responsiveness on a dayto-day basis to the CINC's, you couldn't ask for better than what we have in the way of a Defense Communications System.

In terms of the mapping business, we have since the Grenada operation, tried to make sure now in all these contingency planning activities services going on, that General Rosenberg's agency is brought into that planning process, or General Powers, as necessary, for whatever that operatio el planning is. And there were some recent exercises which were very real in terms of planning for contingencies, and, in fact, I personally talked to the Director of the Joint Staff. I talked to the J-3 of the JCS, and I said I want to make very sure that you guys have adequate maps, charts, and other things for whatever you are planning, and so on. And we talked about it and I was very assured that for the particular areas we were talking about doing the planning for, we had adequate products. So we have taken extraordinary steps to make sure things like that will not happen again if we possibly can do it.

Now, you will find we do not have every square inch of this Earth mapped with the 1-to-50,000 maps. We just can't get that done yet. That is an enormous job, but we are making progress on it.

General ROSENBERG. May I add to that, please? Mr. Chairman, with regard to that, I build my maps and charts, I spend my resources, in accordance with a JCS priority system, and even the military departments and other users are obliged to use that system. And as the Secretary says, because of resource limitations I can't map the whole world, and yet it is always the place where we needed a more up-to-date map, that was the one, after the fact, that we should have had.

Nonetheless, much of the Third World resides in the low-priority area. I have a lot of activities that go on to try to do something about it. My cooperative effort, through an organization I run called the Inter-American Geodetic Survey, that does cooperative efforts with 15 countries in Latin America, taking care of CINCSOUTH requirements, which in fact are lower priority in most of that part of the world, and although Central America certainly enjoys a much higher priority, I don't set those. The unified and specified commanders, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set that priority system, and I respond by not only making new products but maintaining older products. I have a crisis-reaction system whose responsibility is to make sure that we provide updates in a very rapid manner, such as we did in Grenada when we were told of the need.

So I do feel we have a responsive system when we are called in, and this modernization program that I spoke of, which will get us out of the mode of much manual labor, will, in fact, enhance our ability to provide very timely products.

General POWERS. We have covered this subject at some length, but let me put a capstone on the number of times the DCA charter has been reviewed. I have had a long association with this business-in 1961, 1968, 1974, 1977, 1982, and as late as 1984.

Mr. NICHOLS. Is that to say it should not be examined again?

General POWERS. No; it should always be under review, as missions and functions are added to the Agency. One of the concerns that might have been expressed in the past is that the Agency is getting a lot of functions, but none of the functions we have in DCA was done without the explicit direction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. NICHOLS. Any further questions?

Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate very much your testimony here. The testimony of General Powers and also General Rosenberg will be entered into the record, together with the letter we received this morning, hand delivered, from Secretary Lehman, clearing up some questions that were raised in a hearing some days ago about who bought the $110—the next meeting of the committee will be in the morning at 9 o'clock. At that time we will hear witnesses, Dr. Edward Litwak, author of "The Pentagon and the Art of War”; Hon. Robert Komer, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Hon. James Wade, Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, Department of Defense; and Lt. Gen. Donald Babers, Director of Defense Logistics Agency. If there is no further business before the committee, the committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Tuesday, February 25, 1986.)

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »