Dr. FOSTER. It is certainly true that the radar can be destroyed if the offense runs the defense out of missiles or if there is a leakage of an enemy missile through the defense.

What we have done to cope with such a high level of threat, as I indicated earlier, is to initiate the development of the hard-site defense. Senator CASE. Point defense system?

Dr. FOSTER. That's right, the point defense system. Now that system could not be effective until around 1977.

SYSTEM COMPUTERS

Senator YOUNG. I have just one more question. How vulnerable are the computers and the delicate instruments in connection with the ABM?

Dr. FOSTER. They have been hardened, sir. That is to say, the circuitry involved, the nature of the packaging, the nature of the rooms that they are in, have taken into account the fact that the whole structure has to be subjected to shock, to overpressure and to electromagnetic impulse.

Senator YoUNG. Proceed.

TACTICAL PROGRAM

Dr. FOSTER. I would like to turn for a moment, if I may, to the tactical side, because here I think we have a very important program. Today we have a large Army and a large Air Force. Yet it makes no sense to consider using those forces in the defense of freedom abroad if there is not assurance that we can transport them overseas.

OCEAN SURVEILLANCE

So, in the matter of ocean control in the face of the Soviet challenge, it is our view that a number of major efforts must be undertaken, not that they are enormously expensive, but they are necessary. In particular, let me point out that today, in the area of ocean surveillance [deleted].

Ocean surveillance is one of the most critical things that we must deal with. As it turns out, this Nation has had number of very, very successful programs in that area. You gentlemen are familiar with them. [Deleted.]

But for a number of reasons these programs are disassociated from our tactical warfare development programs at sea. You will find in the requests by the Navy that a number of them have to do with enabling our ships to use our existing [deleted].

ABM DEFENSE CAPABILITY

Senator PASTORE. May I ask a question at this point, Mr. Foster? Would our ABM be a defense against that kind of attack, either a Polaris attack or one of these ships [deleted] away from our coastline? Dr. FOSTER. Yes, sir; it would provide defense but, quite honestly, only in the vicinity of the battery of defensive equipment. It would not provide coverage 600 miles across and 1,000 miles long.

Senator CASE. Would it just be the Sprint?

Dr. FOSTER. Yes; it would be primarily Sprint coverage, a few tens of miles around the battery only. Now some of the missiles actually go to quite high trajectories, in which case we could use Spartans for a coverage that might go up to as high as [deleted] miles or so; but generally this defense could protect only in the area of the battery.

NEW YORK CITY DEFENSE

Senator PASTORE. In other words, there is nothing in our present ABM posture that would defend, let us say, the city of New York against such attack?

Dr. FOSTER. I believe generally that is so, sir.

SHIP-TO-SHIP COMMUNICATION TERMINALS AND AIRCRAFT-TO-SHIP AND LAND COMMUNICATIONS VIA SATELLITE

Now in the area of communications, our ships use high-frequency communications, which are generally not reliable at great distances. Yet today we have satellites that permit us to talk with high reliability from this country to Europe. Those same satellites would permit a ship's commander to talk to another ship-if only he had the terminals. So, you will find requests to develop appropriate terminals so that ships can talk to one another. But, in addition, ships today do not have highly reliable communications with aircraft that are out of sight. Yet it is technologically possible to put on an aircraft an antenna and a receiver so that it could communicate with land stations or with ships at sea with high reliability through a satellite.

[Deleted.]

Technologically there are a number of things we can do to make that possible. In a way, this is integrating our forces. Senator CASE. You mean when they are [deleted]?

Dr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

SHIPS' OFFENSIVE MISSILE CAPABILITY

We have in our request this year moneys for an aggressive effort to give our ships an offensive missile capability. In prior years we have come before you and talked of the threat we faced from Soviet surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missiles.

We have pushed that program and it is going rather well. This year we are introducing a major effort to gain an interim offensive capability for our ships and a longer range offensive missile capability.

MINES

We also are increasing our effort in the area of mines. [Deleted.] Senator PASTORE. [Deleted.]..

[Colloquy deleted.]

Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.] I would like to report on this to you at a later date.

Senator CASE. [Deleted.]

Dr. FOSTER. [Deleted.]

SMALL HIGH-SPEED AND SURFACE-EFFECTS SHIPS

Another point I would like to make is that ships have grown larger and are more heavily manned and more expensive. History shows that such trends in ships have resulted in navies that have been defeated by other navies with smaller ships and tactics adapted to their use.

So, this year you will find our Navy coming before you with a request to provide for small, very high-speed ships-in the vicinity of [deleted] knots-that will be heavily armed and lightly manned. I am referring to our request for moneys to complete the development and test of two 100-ton ships as well as a [deleted] surface-effect ship. Senator PASTORE. What will be their function, Dr. Foster?

Dr. FOSTER. Their function will be manyfold. We can use them as relatively short-range patrol boats.

Senator PASTORE. Would they carry missiles?

Dr. FOSTER. They would be armed with missiles; yes, sir. But for longer ranges we could think of using larger hulls that could transport men and materiel across the oceans. But to do that we would have to go a step beyond the [deleted] size. The idea, you see, would be to get ships that could fight and ships that could transport materiel that are much faster, less vulnerable, more heavily armed, and less heavily manned.

Senator PASTORE. Would they be good protection for our nuclear aircraft carriers?

Dr. FOSTER. Yes.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF HULL AND CONTROLS

Senator PASTORE. Would these be conventional ships or would they be nuclear? We keep talking about a nuclear navy. Are we going to get a new ship with conventional propulsion or is it going to be nuclear?

Dr. FOSTER. At this stage, sir, the major questions have to do with the design and construction of the hull and its controls.

Senator PASTORE. The decision has not been made?

Dr. FOSTER. The decision on the nature of the powerplant has not been made.

Senator PASTORE. I hope, if they do consider it, that they will take that seriously into account, otherwise, how are these small ships going to be refueled? The smaller they are, the less fuel they can carry unless they have an atomic engine.

Dr. FOSTER. For the present, sir, they are small and their ranges are short, and it makes no sense to talk about nuclear power. But as we grow to the larger sizes, then I think people will seriously consider the nuclear powerplants.

PENDING AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION

Senator YOUNG. Do you have an authorization request from the armed services for these ships?

Dr. FOSTER. Yes, sir; we have. There is a request for both the large surface-effect ship of [deleted] approximately and the test on the 100-ton ship.

Senator PASTORE. I think the record should be more complete in regard to the function of these ships, because I think you are going to run into a little trouble on this item.

Dr. FOSTER. I will be glad to add something more for the record.

Senator PASTORE. Where are you going to use them, where are you going to dock them, and what is going to be their objective? The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are two big bodies of water. If you say they don't require an atomic engine because they are going to be close to the mainland

Dr. FOSTER. No, sir; I did not mean it that way. I said the current designs are small and short-ranged, and they are not thought of as requiring nuclear engines.

Senator PASTORE. Will you include in the record a description of the purpose for which they will be used?

Dr. FOSTER. Yes, sir.

AIR-CAPABLE SHIP

Dr. FOSTER. One is called the air-capable ship. (The information follows:)

We are now completing two 100-ton surface-effect ships of significantly different design, and will subject them to a rigorous series of tests that will add greatly to our knowledge of the performance and potential problem areas of ships of this kind. Meanwhile, we are planning to commence the design of a [deleted] surface-effect ship. This will be an experimental ship, far larger than any that have been built. It will also be able to carry significant loads, and if successful may become a combatant prototype. In this size, which is as large as World War II destroyers, a surface-effect ship could carry 200 tons of cargo to a range of perhaps 300 miles, without refueling, at speeds of [deleted]. Missions being studied include ASW, an air-capable mission with VTOL aircraft, and highspeed transport of combat troops and equipment. Follow-on ships in larger sizes, perhaps [deleted] might be able to perform many, if not all, of the functions of aircraft carriers, but at far lower cost. At present, we do not have enough information to be sure. In the larger sizes, nuclear power becomes an attractive candidate for a propulsion system, but for the [deleted] experimental ship it is not being considered. What we need at this time is to build a ship large enough that we can "wring out" all of the problems of use and support.

Dr. FOSTER. The request here is for a study effort to determine whether or not it is possible to come up with a smaller ship to serve as ar aircraft carrier, but in smaller numbers.

Senator PASTORE. This is research?

Dr. FOSTER. That will be a study, research only.

Senator PASTORE. In other words, we are not going to go into production on these until we find out that we can do it?

Dr. FOSTER. Absolutely not.

Senator PASTORE. I assume something like this would be very effective, let us say, in the Gulf of Tonkin, once you got it there.

Dr. FOSTER. Certainly, it would represent a high-speed maneuverable capability.

Senator PASTORE. The problem is to get it from the west coast of the United States. How many times would you have to refuel it before you got it there?

64-738-71-pt. 1- -30

Dr. FOSTER. That would be a much bigger ship, and there we would consider the nuclear-power aspect.

LAND WARFARE

INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER CENTER

Let me turn to land warfare for a moment. In land warfare there is an initiative that will be presented to you by the Army with a request for some money-as I recall, $27 million-to care for the individual soldier. Now this money is to provide one central location that has the responsibility for caring for the individual soldier.

You know, we spend in the military forces about $42 billion each year on pay, and we say that our individual soldier is our most precious possession. He certainly is the most sophisticated of all our weapons. Yet he is the least understood.

There is a tendency, in judging what he ought to have, to go to senior people and get their judgment. Now what General Westmoreland proposes to do is establish a center, probably at Fort Benning where the soldiers are trained, headed up by a general officer, whose responsibility is to take care of this individual soldier.

The essence of the program is to find out what his problems are as he views them. Certainly he has the problem of standing in line. He stands in line from the day he comes into the Army until the day he leaves. That is one thing that the soldier remembers after he leaves the service.

He spends a fair fraction of his whole life in the service standing in line-for food, for clothing, for entertainment, and so forth.

Senator YOUNG. This is not involved in research and development? Dr. FOSTER. There is some research in human behavior and what can be done to make his life better. You cannot ask for an all-volunteer force unless you make the job, the environment of the individual soldier, better than it is now.

So some of the money in this request would be used to gain an understanding of the nature of the problem, what those people think about their life in the service, and to see what we can do about it.

Senator PASTORE. You mean after all these years we don't know? Dr. FOSTER. Yes; we know, but the judgments, Senator Pastore, are all too often being made by senior people and not down at the level of the individual soldier.

Senator PASTORE. That is true.

Dr. FOSTER. They make judgments on helmets. We have developments on helmets, developments on clothing, developments on shoes, developments on rifles. The judgments are made by people who have not worn a helmet and soldier's clothing and boots or carried a rifle for years and years.

Senator YOUNG. Since fighting the last war.

Senator PASTORE. You would computerize all this?

Dr. FOSTER. I am not so sure how much the computer would be used in the early phases. The idea is to take people who are in training at Fort Benning, for example, and give them the new rifle to compare with the one they were trained with, give them the new helmet, clothing, and boots to wear for purposes of getting their views on the new items. You see, we have developed a lot of new equipment, but over the