Weight & Balance Manual for Cessna L19 305A Bird Dog

future wars through prudent strength and constant read- iness. It underscored the importance of the peacetime military mission of deterring wars and preserving the peace. And it accentuated our responsibility to perpetu- ate the vital body of knowledge about national security and the employment of military force through a never- ending process oflearning and teaching and learning and teaching. A basic constitutional mandate of our Association is "to educate ourselves and the public at large in the development of adequate aerospace power" for our na- tion's security and for the benefit of all mankind. This tenet of our Association flows from the legacy of our founder, General of the Air Force Henry A. "Hap" Arnold, through our first President, General Jimmy Doolittle, and all succeeding APA officials. This is im- portant, for it is aerospace power that provides or denies global access, either for good or for evil. We cannot ignore the implications of this basic fact if we would protect our freedoms and our security. All too often, our Association as well as our fellow citizens, our government, and our educational system default in our responsibility to educate ourselves and our successor generations on the importance of this overarching aspect of our nation's strength. We ignore the lessons of history; we fail to appreciate the dyna- mism of research and development; we try to under- stand and rationalize inimical forces through reflections in our own mirror; we want to leave tough decisions to others-electing to be observers rather than partici- pants in our vital security interests. 4 Accepting these "teaching-learning-sharing-doing" responsibilities of our Association and of basic cit- izenship is difficult. But notwithstanding the difficulty, it is a task that we must accept if we are to avoid inferiority and oblivion experienced by other effete societies that just couldn't be bothered with the responsibility of vig- ilance. It is not easy to sort out the real issues of defense from the bumper-sticker slogans and parochial jingoism that surround us. It is not easy to educate ourselves and convince Congress that the best and most reliable guar- antee of peace with freedom is real, relevant strength. It is extremely difficult to keep up the morale of our mili- tary forces and keep their combat capabilities honed to an edge when we know that the more successful we are, the less chance they will ever be used. It is difficult to create an understanding of the danger to our national security in advance of coercive aggression or a military attack-and then it may be too late. The most difficult of all these tasks will be that of convincing and inspiring our fellow citizens of the neces- sity to take actions in advance to defend and protect our political freedoms before they are put in jeopardy. Sol- zhenitsyn gave us the most prescient admonition I have ever read when, in The Gulag Archipelago, he wrote: "Free men do not know the value of things!" As difficult as these things are, the best chance of success in all of them lies in serious, responsible educa- tion-not just academic exercises, but practical educa- tion based on experience, common sense, and involve- ment in the learning-teaching-learning process. Educa- tion, however, is not the answer if it is abstract and ill- founded. That's where we come in. Within our Association, we have an unmatched wealth of experience and wisdom in security issues, military knowledge, and international understanding. It is our responsibility to teach and learn and teach some more. It is our civic obligation to our successors to see to it that the education they receive in our schools is adequate to prepare them to lead our nation in the future. As I terminate my tenure as your Publisher and retire as AFA's Executive Director, I urge my fellow members to accept their obligation to the education of our na- tion-for themselves and for our fellow men. Let's get involved and stay involved. An educated and motivated population is the first step toward avoiding national ruin and is the sine qua non of our survival. ■ AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 JTIDS, the Joint Tactical Informa- tion Distribution ~• System. s new a reality with IP1te- grat10n inproc~ssil'I U.S. Air Force F-15 aircraft and the U.S. Army PLRS-JTJDS Hybrid. Rockwell lnternational'sCollins Government Avionics rnlvlsfen and Singer's Kearf0tt Dlvfsionare delivering AN1UR, -197(V) Class 2term'irtalswlilich WIil fnaf<e It ~-!i)Ssltllle fer Air F0tte and Army elements ta coor,dinate m.lssiG>ns with reliable, real-time information. AWACS and fighter-attack aircraft can share common information with Army ground air defense, artillery and surface-to-air missile co mmands over- the JTIDS network. The sery ices will also share d~ta on enemy positions, speed and streAgth and importan t informat ion about friendly forc es, such as identity and pesitiens. weapons status and fuel reserve s. Here's how we've geared-up for full scale production: • Through participation in the U.S. Air Force Tech Mod program. our facilities modernization plan promises high- quality, low-cost production. • we·re,~pf!ll:Ylng 40 years of Collins .RF exJ')ertise-lncluding pr0ductlon 0f 20,000 ARN- ll8 TA~ANs and more than 14.0IDO ARC-186 VHF trans.c;eivers. · • We've developed advanced handling, assembly and test methods for RF circuitry, lead-less chips and surface- mounted devices for efficient production of JTIDS Class 2 terminals. Rockwell and Singer are committed to providing the light- ning-fast information our services need. To find out more about the JTIDS program and Rockwell's role in it, contact: Collins Government Avionics Division. Rockwell interna- tional. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52498. Or call (319) 395-2208. CDLlJNS AVIO C 41~ Rockwell "•~ lnternattonal ... where..!l clence gets dow11 to business Aerospace I Electronics/ Automotive General Industries/ A-B Industrial Automation I THE BOEING ATF : FIGURES WELL IN OUR COUNTRY'S DEFENSE. The assignment: Build the world's most advanced tactical fighter for less than $35 million per unit. At the same time, keep operating and support costs to an absolute minimum. The solution: The Boeing ATF The reason: Expertise. Boeing ATF avionics do the job better, for less. A modular de- sign reduces the number of con- nections by 90%. And standardized pooled spares keep the ATF in the air with fewer maintenance manhours per flight hour. All of which will help the Boeing ATF cut avionics maintenance by 60%. Thermoplastics developed by Boeing provide a lighter, stronger airframe at the same cost as cur- rent fighters. Thermoplastics are tougher and easier to maintain than aluminum or thermoset com- posites. And Boeing's innovative airframe construction requires 50% fewer fasteners and parts. The Factory of the Future will help Boeing control costs even further. Computer-aided inventory control will eliminate waiting for parts. And an automated stock- room will be operated by robots that can handle 20 times the weight a human can. Add it all together and it's easy to see why the Boeing ATF can be one of our country's most ef- fective and affordable deterrents. IIOEIA'li - . .~. .ii -- - u .,- --.r~ I ____......______________,,, ........ - ___.. ._.;: I + • I-■ - i - . ,I ~ .al ' ~xcellence in Weapor;, Systems Engineering - •I . 1•• • Our Business for Over 37 Years Vitro Corporation provides weapon systems engineering to the Department of Defense. Founded in 1948 and with nearly 6,000 employees worldwide, Vitro possesses a large ex- perience base tor engineering, system integra- tion, and logistic support. Time and again Vitro delivers. From system software as computer program design agent tor the Ground Launched Cruise Missile to systems engineering as system Integration agent tor Ter - rier and Tartar guided missile weapons systems. Vitro applies the rigorous methodologies that en- sure reliable systems . . . systems that work. Vitro Corporation provides a broad array of weapons technology skills, including systems analysis, acquisition support, program manage- ment assistance, and data management. Vitro Corporation Is bringing our weapon sys- tems engineering and acquisition experience to •Ft. Walton Beach to support the U.S. Air Force Systems Command, Armament Division ... to continue a tradition of excellence. ~ Turning Today's Technologies ~ ra.nto Tomorrow's Systems CORPORATION 14000 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 For information call our Marketing Manager, (301) 231-1300 A Unit of the Penn Central Federal Svstems Companv - . I t I• Unchanged Values? The attitude displayed by Editor in Chief John T. Correll in his editorial "The Drift of Values " is remarkably sophomoric (April '86 issue, p. 4). Fur- thermore, Mr. Correll presents highly selective and misleading arguments to explain his view. I, for one, take great exception to his claim that American values have degenerated. One should remember that this great nation watched Hitler rearm Germany, watched German armies overrun most of Europe, and watched Japanese armies conquer much of Asia before acting. In fact, it wasn 't until 2,000 Americans lost their lives at Pearl Harbor that the public began to display the spirit of sacrifice and national unity required to defeat the Axis powers. Today, has there been a "Pearl Har- bor" to arouse the American people? Only if Americans fail to respond to an incident of similar magnitude can Mr. Correll claim that our values have changed. Mr. Correll also equates more dol- lars given to defense with increased national security. It's not quite that simple. The output of defense spend- ing is important (e.g., force structure improvements, higher pay, better training), not spending in itself. Granted, it is difficult to measure se- curity; however, it is not based solely on the level of spending. Moreover, Americans today are re- acting to incidents of cost overruns in military programs that ~pproach criminal negligence. Given this, there is no reason to denigrate the values of Americans concerned about govern- ment spending. Percentages of the GNP allocated to defense are presented to convince the reader that our values have changed. Less than seven percent is spent on defense today, whereas 8.3 percent was spent on defense in 1961. In addition, today's share for defense represents a smaller percentage of federal spending than in 1951-72. This is misleading. The appropriate level of defense spending should be tied to the missions that the military is expected to accomplish. The level of AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 AIRMAIL defense spending during the post- World War II buildup (the Korean War era), spending following the Sputnik scare, and spending during the Viet- nam War (all of which occurred be- tween 1951-72) have little direct rele- vance to spending levels today. To suggest that we spend 8.3 percent on defense today because we did it twen- ty-five years ago is plain wrong. Finally, Mr. Correll indicates that al- locating a greater share of the na- tion's wealth to defense will let our troops know that they will not be dis- patched casually to die in unpopular wars. There is simply no connection here. The experience of Vietnam should demonstrate that higher de- fense budgets and dirty wars that our fellow citizens don't care for are not mutually exclusive. The tone of Mr. Correll 's editorial is one of remembering how tough it was, how tough one must have been to make the attendant sacrifices. I don't feel that Americans today are that different. Mr. Correll should real- ize that the situation has changed, not the values of the vast majority of Americans. James K. Rosa Falls Church, Va. This letter is in reference to your editorial "The Drift of Values" in the April 1986 issue. You say American values are chang- ing. I disagree. I believe that Ameri- cans still want a strong national de- fense and are as prepared as ever to sacrifice and die for their freedom . What they are not prepared to pay for are weapons that don't work and Do you have a comment about a current laaue? Write to "Alrmall ," A1R FoRcl! Magazine, 1501 Lee Highway, Arlington, Va . 22208· 1198. Letters should be concise , timely, and le,glble (preferably typed). We reaerve the right to con• denae letter, aa necessary, Un• signed letter, are nol acceptable , and photographs cannot be used or returned. that are overpriced, untold layers of bureaucracy at the Pentagon, where the brass claw their way to the next promotion , and congressmen who beat each other over the head to keep an outmoded military facility or the production of yet another weapon system in their district. What they are not prepared to do is to die in small, ill-conceived wars that are merely macho muscle-flexing. The Packard Commission's recom- mendations are a good first step to- ward demonstrating a willingness to give the taxpayer value for his money. In other words, stop throwing mon- ey at the problems, and plan! Judith A. Meredith Annandale, Va. Canada's Contributions I was pleased to read the article by Contributing Editor John L. Frisbee- on "Canada's Air Command" in the April 1986 issue of AIR FORCE Maga- zine (p. 112). I think that we fail to appreciate the military forces of our allies, and this is a useful reminder of the contributions of others. I do have one comment that I would like to make, however. The reference to the Air Reserve Group is very short, and although the size of the Group is small, it is an important element in the total force structure. The Air Reserve Group consists of two Air Reserve Wings at Montreal and Toronto, each of which has two squadrons of Kiowa helicopters. These four squadrons would supple- ment 10 Tactical Air Group in support of Mobile Command. In addition, there are three other standalone squadrons with Dakota, Twin Otter, and Tracker aircraft, which supple- ment the transport and other respon- sibilities of Air Command. While the reserve element is small, it does contribute an important part of the total force. Edward B. Davis Charleston, S. C. AAF Torpedo Bombers It was good to read John Frisbee's article "Marauders at Midway" in the April 1986 issue of A1R FORCE Maga- 9 .L:11B FORCf Publisher Russell E. Dougherty Deputy Publisher Andrew B. Anderson Associate Publishers Charles E. Cruze. Richard M. Skinner Editor In Chief John T. Correll Senior Editor (Polley & Technology) Edgar Ulsamer Senior Editors James W. Canan , James P. Coyne Staff Editor Jeffrey P. Rhodes Military Relations Editor James A McDonnell , Jr. Contributing Editors John L, Frisbee Br ian Green Gen T. R. Millon , USAF (Re t. ) Maj. Randal E. Morger, USAF John W. R. Taylor (" Jan e's Supplement ") Robin L. Whittle Managing Editor Richard M, Skinner Assistant Managing Editor Hugh Winkler Director of Production Robert T. Shaughness Art Director Guy Aceto Research Librarian Pearlie M Draughn Editorial Assistants Colleen A. Bollard , Grace Lizzio Secretary to the Editor In Chief Dorothy L Swa in Advertising Director Charles E Cruze 1501 Lee Highway Arlington, Va . 22209-1198 Tel : 703 / 247 - 5800 Director of Marketing Services Patricia Teevan-703/247-5800 AREA ADVERTISING MANAGERS East Coast and Canada By Nichoias-203/357-7781 Midwest William Farrell-312 /446-4304 West Coast Gary Gelt-213 /641-7970 UK , Benelux, France, and Scandinavia Ric hard A. Ewin Da vid Harrison Ove rseas Publi city Ltd. 91-101 Oxfo rd Street London Wt R 1RA , England Tel : 1-439-9 26 3 Italy and Switzerland Dr. Vittorio F. Negron e, Ediconsult Internationale S.A.S. Piauo Fontane Marose 3 16123 Genova, Italy Tel : (010) 543659 Germany and Austria Fritz Thimm 645 Hanau am Main, Friedrichstrasse 15 W. Germany Tel : (06181) 32118 WBPA Circulation audited by Business Publication Audit 10 AIRMAIL zine (p. 140). Although primarily a well-deserved tribute to Jim Collins, I appreciated reading one of the little- known stories about an often -ma- ligned and almost forgotten aircraft of World War II. Following Jim Collins's experience in the Pacific at Midway, B-26s as- signed to the 17th Bomb Group and committed to the North African cam- paign were equipped with external torpedo shackles under the fuselage and a mechanical aiming and release device remoted to the cockpit. We then received training from a Naval officer and two enlisted technicians on the care and deployment of Naval aircraft torpedoes. The suggested tactic was to initiate a torpedo run at a prescribed altitude and, tor a B-26, very low airspeed. Following the torpedo release, the run was to be continued, skip-bomb- ing with internally carried 500-pound general-purpose bombs. B-26s mak- ing the low-altitude torpedo run would be covered by a higher 8-26 group making level runs on the target ships .... I did not fly any torpedo missions, and, after forty-three years, I do not recall any specific missions when tor- pedoes were actually dropped . How- ever, if any such missions were flown , then I'm sure you will receive com- ments from the participants ... . Lt . Col. Seymour Liebman, USAF (Ret.) Northport, N. Y. Re : The "Valor " article "Marauders at Midway" in your April 1986 issue. With all due credit to Jim Collins and the other B-26 fly guys on that day in June, they were not the only ones to carry torpedoes into combat. The ar- ticle ends with the statement, " Ac- cording to Air Force historians, the AAF never again sent torpedo-armed bombers into combat." The historians should have done more research . The B-25s of the 47th Bomb Squadron , 41st Bomb Group, Seventh Air Force, did just that. We 8-25 boys trained to use tor- pedoes at Eglin Field, Fla. We used these torpedoes at Sesebo harbor, Kyushu, Japan, a number of times in 1945. I should know, because I was one of those fly guys! John Mahan Merrimack, N. H. European Aerospace I was saddened to read John Cut- cher's letter concerning Airbus lndus- trie and its products in the April 1986 "Airmail"(p. 10). Financial profitability must never be the sole criterion for judging the worth of anything man- made, and, if we are honest, we must admit that commercial aviation has received subsidies of one kind or an- other throughout its history. Gener- ous airmail contracts helped to estab- lish early commercial airlines ; more recently, airliner production has been underwritten sometimes by contracts for military versions of the same type. Such assistance to operators and manufacturers makes good sense. As Editor of Jane 's All the World's Aircraft, I am not concerned directly with aircraft prices or economics, al- though I deplore some of the less at- tractive practices in aircraft sales- manship that come to light from time to time. As an engineer, I can only view the Airbus program as the most productive commercial transport de- sign and manufacturing venture yet undertaken on this side of the Atlan- tic . As such , it has been successful in keeping large sections of Europe's highly capable aviation industry alive and at work . With the exception of a few com- panies such as Dassault, it is true that Europe has never been efficient at marketing its airplanes, but this does not mean that all jobs in the airliner business belong in Seattle and Long Beach, where salesmen might be more successful. Profits keep only companies alive. It takes sound engi- neering , as well , to keep passengers alive. In this respect, Europe has noth- ing of which to be ashamed . Mr. Cutcher refers to the early suc- cess of the Viscount, when the UK pioneered tu rbine transportation . To- day, the only supersonic airliner in the world, making a handsome operating profit in routine day-to-day service, is the Anglo-French Concorde . In the military field, the first and only West- ern V/STOL aircraft is the British-con- ceived Harrier. Those who read my annual Aero- space Surveys in A1R FoRcE Magazine (see also "Jane's Aerospace Survey 1986," January ' 86 issue, p. 68) and Forewords in Jane 's All the World 's Aircraft will know that such com- ments imply no European or British bias. Boeing builds the superlative 747 as the unique flagship of a family of great airliners. But if the West bought its commercial transports only from Boeing and Douglas, we should be in danger of drifting toward a policy of buying all military aircraft in St. Louis, Bethpage, Fort Worth, AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 CH SHOTLTV's Hypervelocity Missile: Fast, acc urate and affordab le . T he column of enemy taoks is still several miles away when the attacking aircraft swing onto its firing run. Its FUR is already tracking their heal signatures. Less than three seconds later, with the aircraft still safely out of range, the missiles slam into their targets with uncanny accuracy. Low Cost, High Firepower One of the most awesomely effective weapons ever developed for Close Air Support/ Battlefield Air Interdiction, the Hypervelocity Missile (HVM) weapon system was designed to deliver maxi- mum firepower at a cost far below anything in our current inventory. A product of Vought Missiles and Advanced Programs Division of LTV Aerospace and Defense Company, HVM is a masterpiece of simplicity and ingenuity. It carries no warhead, relying instead on its blistering 5000-foot-per-second speed to blast a penetrator rod through heavy multi-plate armor, even at highly oblique angles at extreme range. Its guidance system is a simple CO, laser, mounted on the air- craft. With only an aft-looking receiver on the missile, the amount of expensive "throwaway" hardware is held to an abso- lute minimum. And because HVM is a "wooden round" with no warhead, storage and handling are simpler, safer and cheaper. L V L 0 0 K I Multiple Targets, Maximum Effect The system can track and attack multiple targets simultaneously- any ground vehicle, fixed or mobile. In live fire tests an HVM was purposely aimed more than 100 feet off-target. Automatic guid- ance brought the missile to impact near the target center. With no bulky on-board guidance system or warhead, the HVM is small enough to permit a large loadout-up to 24 per aircraft, at a low installed drag. No other weapon system has ever given the CAS / BAI pilot the HVM's unique advantages in speed, accuracy and survivability- advantages matched only by its cost-efficiency and low suscepti- bility to countermeasures. LTV Aerospace and Defense Company, Vought Missiles and Advanced Programs Division, P.O. Box 650003, Mail Stop MC-49, Dallas, Texas 75265-0003. Im Aerospace and Defense Vought Missiles and Advanced Programs Division N G A H E A D "WE BUILD THE BEST MISSILES BY STARTING FROM THE GROUND UP. OUITE LITERALLY." "To build the kind of weapon systems we produce-and do it right- you can't usejust any old convel!ted factory. That's a big reason why most McDonnell Dauglas production takes place in company- designed, compaI)y-owned plants-. "For Tomahawk, we spent S 110 million to design and build a nine -acre plant at Titusville, Florida, specifically engineered for the unique production steps and the machinery required to produce these sophisticated missiles. Ofcourse, owping the plan1-insteadof leasing space ftom the government as is typical-puts the risk on us. But it saves the govemmentthe price of bncks and mortar. And there's no sacrifice of efficiency. Everything is built to achieve the production efficiencies, cost control, quality and value the govern- ment bas come to expect from us. UWe're ready now to begin work on the next generation or even more reliable, more effective weapon systems our fon:es need. Ready with the skills, experience, and the facilities built from the grounduptodothejobrlght~ ~~-rt {J =~ and California. Such a policy belongs in the East. All but the smallest air- liners and all combat aircraft flown by Warsaw Pact nations are designed in the Soviet Union. The long-estab- lished and competent industries of Poland and Czechoslovakia manufac- ture little but trainers, gliders, small helicopters, and general aviation types. Is this really what we want? At the moment , we have a company in Toulouse that has sold more than 500 large airliners since the early 1970s- ni nety-two of them last year. They have also played a major part in keep- ing alive a European industry that has proved its worth in war and peace, pioneering many of the major ad- vances throughout the history of pow- ered aeroplane flight. Surely, with more than 890,000,000 passengers to carry on scheduled airline services each year, there is room for Airbus as well as Boeing and Douglas. If economics had always been para- mount, few pioneer aviators would ever have left the ground . Nor, throughout history, would anyone have built a great bridge or cathedral if it had been required to show a prof- it. Bridges, like commercial airplanes, link communities. Cathedrals provide places in which to thank God for the blessings of employment and the freedom to trade in ways that some- times benefit nations other than our own . The alternative is summed up cynically in the title of the James Bond film, Live and Let Die. In the Bag John W. R. Taylor Surbiton, Surrey United Kingdom Re: The TAC Commander's views on better-dressed pilots (see "Aerospace World," April '86 issue , p. 41). Your article reported that Gen . Robert D. Russ, TAC Commander, was searching for a better-looking uni- form possibly to replace the "green bags. " Such a uniform already exists. MAC aircrews belonging to the 1st Helicopter Squadron and Det. 2, 67th ARRS, along with several other non- MAC units, are wearing a blue Nomex flight suit and flight jacket that I re- searched, designed, tested, and pro- cured . The blue Nomex flight uniforms (Air Force Shade 1578, the same color as the flight caps) are similar to the green Nomex flight uniforms, but more professional in appearance. The knife pocket has been eliminated, and epaulets have been added to both the suit and jacket. This flight uniform AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 AIRMAIL was tested and met or exceeded the requirements of the green Nomex flight uniforms. Provided that the Nomex material is solution-dyed, as both the green and blue uniforms are, it is my under- standing that the material will not lose any of its fire-retardant qualities, no matter how often it is washed. Capt. David C. Delisio, USAF Andrews AFB, Md. SAMs for Afghanistan While the recent Administration de- cision to send advanced shoulder- launched SAMs to Afghanistan is a good one, depending on Stinger SAMs is not. It is not in the best inter- ests of the US to allow our most ad - vanced technology to fall into Soviet hands. I doubt that it will prove to be feasible for guerrillas to provide the necessary support for such a com- plex system. A much better idea would be to send a mixture of different SAM sys- tems. The goal of sending advanced SAMs should be to make it more diffi- cult for the Soviets to provide effec- tive countermeasures for their air- craft . The more different kinds of systems they have to defend against, the more complex that task will be. The primary emphasis shou Id be on the British Blowpipe. This is an all- aspect SAM designed to be operated without external support and under harsh conditions. It would force the Soviets to use ECM as well as flares to stop missiles. Active jammers can be detected with relatively primitive RDF equipment, making helicopters easi- er to find at longer ranges. SA-7s, Redeyes, and some Stingers would provide a diversified threat. XLB-5 Crash Scott Kitterman Overland Park, Kan. I am currently researching the crash of a US Army Air Corps bomber that occurred in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, on May 28, 1927. The aircraft involved was a Huff-Daland lighter bomber (s /n 26-208) called the XLB-5. Normally, the aircraft carried a crew of five-two ,pilots, two gunners, and a bombar- dier. Prior to the crash, four of the crew members bailed out after a pro- peller on the right engine broke off and subsequently did considerable damage to the lower right wing. One crew member was unable to para- chute for reasons unknown and was killed on impact. ... This accident is of historical signifi- cance locally and is being researched for the Reynoldsburg-Truro Township Historical Society. It is also of interest on a larger scale because the aircraft commander that day, Maj. Lewis H. Brereton , later became a lieutenant general and one of the most signifi- cant figures of World War II. While I have been able to gather a significant amount of information on the facts surrounding the crash itself, it has been harder to learn about the procurement, construction, and his- tory of this aircraft since it was a one- of-a-kind model. Further complicat- ing my research is the fact that the company that built it went out of busi- ness in the 1930s. In addition to learning about the air- craft, I would like to discover what happened to the crew after the acci - dent . The following men were on board that day : Maj. Lewis H. Bre- reton , 2d Lt. Bernard M. Bridget, MSgt. Clyde M. Taylor, Sgt. Fred D. Miller, and Pvt. Daniel Leroy Yeager (who perished in the crash). All were members of the 20th Bombardment Squadron at Langley Field. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who could shed light on this incident. Michael P. Millar 2426 Ravenel Dr. Columbus, Ohio 43209 Weasels In Vietnam I am researching a book about an MIA/ KIA USAF officer, Capt. Michael J. Bosiljevac, who was shot down near VietTri , North Vietnam, on September 29, 1972. Captain Bosiljevac was an EWO aboard an F-105G Wild Weasel aircraft, of which the tactical call sign was "Condor 01." The four aircraft in the flight were F-105Ds and F-4Fs. The F-105D portion of the mission originated from Korat RTAFB, Thailand, and was assigned to the 17th Wild Weasel Squadron, 388th Tactical Fighter Wing. At the time of the downing, Lt. Col. James O'Neill was the squadron operations officer. I understand from my research that tape recordings of the shootdown and ejections of Captain Bosiljevac and his pilot, Colonel O'Neill, were made by other aircraft in the Condor flight. Both the USAF Historical Re- search Center and the 388th TFW his- torian state that the tape recordings can no longer be found and might possibly be in the personal posses- sion of the crew members of the other Condor aircraft. I would appreciate hearing from 13 anyone who might have access to these recordings or who might have copies of the tapes. I would also ap- preciate hearing from any other mem- bers of the Condor flight on that fateful day or from any crew member who might have been aboard " Red Crown," which was also in voice con- tact with Condor 01 and which re- corded the shootdown conversa- tions. Captain Bosiljevac's name has nev- er appeared on any list furnished by the Vietnamese, even though his name was mentioned by an English- speaking guard named Win in the Hanoi Hilton a few days after the shootdown. Anyone with any information on Captain Bosiljevac is asked to contact me at the address below. Alfred A. Raneri P. 0. Box 952 Wahiawa, Hawaii 96786-0952 The Bird Dog Lives! Your article on the 0-2 in the July 1985 issue (see " The Duck Lives," July '85 issue, p. 128) has inspired us to call attention to a retired and al- most forgotten warbird with a similar mission. The 0-1 Bird Dog (Cessna 305 / L-19) served our armed forces diligently from 1951 to the early 1970s. The Air Force used the 0-1 extensively in FAC roles during the Vietnam years. Thanks to the efforts of the Interna- tional Bird Dog Association (IBDA), this endangered species is back ! The missions of the IBDA are to preserve the heritage of the aircraft, to keep as many of them flying as possible, and to reunite former 0-1 pilots and crews. The IBDA boasts more than 150 members. Interest in this proud little bird and the IBDA is growing rapidly. Persons interested in this endeavor should contact us at the address be- low. International Bird Dog Association 3939 C-8 San Pedro, N. E. Albuquerque, N. M. 87110 Yankee Air Force The Yankee Air Force is seeking Air Force veterans of World War I, World War II , Korea, and Vietnam to appear as guest speakers at their meetings. The YAF was planned and orga- nized in 1981 to research , restore, and preserve historical and vintage air- craft for historic and educational pur- poses. General membership meet- ings are held every third Wednesday of the month at 8:00 p. m. in the Ready Room at the Essex County Airport, 125 Passaic Ave., Fairfield, N. J. 14 AIRMAIL The public is welcome to attend. If anyone is interested in being a speaker at a YAF meeting, please con- tact Anthony Giacobbe, YAF program chairman, at (201) 388-1962. Yankee Air Force Essex County Airport 125 Passaic Ave. Fairfield, N. J. 07006 447th Bomb Group I am the Secretary of the 447th Bomb Group Association (UK). The Association was formed in 1982 to raise funds to place a memorial to the 447th adjacent to its old airfield at Rattlesden in Suffolk. We achieved this goal two years and £2 ,000 later. One of the main projects we are cur- rently working on is the " History Proj- ect." This, we hope, will eventually serve as the basis for a written memo- rial of the 447th 's time at Rattlesden. From contributions from local people and from 447th veterans, we hope to piece together a picture of the time and the people caught up in it. This won 't be just a facts-and-figures com- pilation, but more of a human interest story. We would like to hear from any readers who may be able to contrib- ute any recollections, anecdotes, photographs, etc ., to our effort. Please contact us at the address be- low. Jacqueline Partridge 2, Priory Cottages Preston St. Mary Sudbury Suffolk CO10 9NF United Kingdom 708th Bomb Squadron I am seeking information about the 708th Bomb Squadron, Eighth Air Force, which flew out of England dur- ing World War II. Lt. Hugh C. Bowers flew a B-17 in that squadron and was coming back from a run over Berlin on August 27 , 1944, when his airplane (possibly dubbed Duback Two) was shot down. He and the rest of the crew were lost that day. If any reader flew in that squadron or knew that crew, I would like to hear from them . Please write me at the ad- dress below. Christopher C. Bowers 3616 Lundie Lane Petersburg, Va . 23805 388th TFW The 388th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hill AFB, Utah, is trying to locate peo- ple who were members of the 388th, which dates back to 1942. This unit grew out of the 388th Bombardment Group. The purpose of this search is to up- date a pictorial history and to create a narrative of the 388th TFW from 1942-86. If you have any pictures or other material that would be useful in this regard, we would like to hear from you . Please contact the address be- low. SSgt. Robert J. Olson, USAF 388th TFW/HO Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5000 Phone: (801) 777-3590/ 4921 17th Recon Squadron I am conducting research on the 17th Reconnaissance Squadron , which flew in the Southwest Pacific during World War II. This unit flew B-25s and was attached to the 38th Bomb Group. I am particularly interested in con- tacting W. S. Goodrich or Sumner G. Lind or any pilot or crew member who was involved in the December 26, 1944, raid on the Japanese task force headed for Biak. Please contact me at the number or address below. Gary Whitaker 6109 Estes Park Ct. Haltom City, Tex. 76137 Phone : (817) 281-2843 421st TFS I am currently in the process of gathering information on the 421 st Night Fighter Squadron / Tactical Fighter Squadron for a book that will cover the history of each. I am inter- ested in contacting any former mem- bers of the 421 st who would be able to help. I am especially interested in people who were with the 421st at George AFB (1962), McConnell AFB (1964), Kadena AB (1965), and Korat RTAFB (1965). Please contact me at the address below. Sgt. Jeff L. Kolin, USAF 3382 A Saratoga Hill AFB, Utah 84056 Millville AAF I am searching for material on the Millville Army Air Field for a project for the Millville Airport Museum. Dur- ing World War 11 , this field was an ad - vanced fighter training center for pi- lots who were transitioning to the P-47 Thunderbolt. I hope to locate information and perhaps photographs or just to talk to AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 THE F-16 FIGHTING FALCON UNSURPASSED PERFORMANCE The F -16 performs the air defense mission in ten air forces-today. GENERAL DYNAMICS SECTELM: A Motorola Future Secure Voice System. Our SecTel STU-III Secure Tele- phone Terminal moves operations right to your desk top. For voice and data telephone security or clear voice operation. Automated key security means minimal COMSEC custodial duty and it's unclassified when unattended. Positive caller authentication with audio quality voice recognition plus a computer compatible RS-232/RS-449 data port make use easy. Find out how easy this tamper resistant, feature phone moves voice and data com- munications security right to your desk. Call 602/949-3232 or write Motorola, Government Electronics Group, P. O. Box 2606, Scottsdale, AZ 85252. Your key to future security. ® MOTOROLA INC. Government Electronics Group the men who were stationed at the field during the war. If you were stationed at Millville AAF, please contact me at the address below. Michael T. Stowe 1510 West Main St. Millville, N. J. 08332 Phone: (609) 825-4261 HU-16 Albatross I am searching for information on the HU-16 Albatross. I would greatly appreciate any infor- mation on squadrons, aircraft num- bers, bases, etc. In addition, I would like to hear about any historical arti- cles or books about this aircraft and any photographs of the Albatross. Please contact me at the address below. Ted Lang 8144 Buttonwood Way Citrus Heights, Calif. 95621-1113 391 st Bomb Group I am interested in any and all infor- mation on aircrews, combat mis- sions, and between-mission activities of the 391st Bomb Group. This Martin B-268 unit , which served with the Ninth Air Force in 1944, flew out of bases located in Matching, England. Any readers having any information about the 391 st Bomb Group are re- quested to contact me at the address below. Robert L. Gallo 220 Pebblestone Dr. Benbrook, Tex. 76126 Slippery Rock Cadets The Slippery Rock University Army ROTC Extension Center is conduct- ing research on alumni and former students of all services who have had distinguished military careers. An area of special interest is graduates of the World War II Army Air Corps Cadet Program conducted at what was then Slippery Rock State Teachers' Col- lege, Slippery Rock, Pa. We would like any alumni of "The Rock" to provide us with a short bio- graphy that describes accomplish- ments, a photo, and a patch or unit crest or other appropriate memo- rabilia . Please include your name, grade, unit, and any other pertinent information with your donation. Lee F. Kichen Slippery Rock University Slippery Rock, Pa. 16057-9989 17th Cadet Group If you are a Troy State University AF- ROTC alumnus, the 17th Cadet Group would like to hear from you. Our AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 AIRMAIL alumni association is currently updat- ing its graduate files in order to reach all previous Troy cadets more effec- tively. If you received a commission through the TSU AFROTC program, send us your name, rank, current mailing address, job assignment, and year of graduation. In return, we will send you a copy of our quarterly newsletter and provide you with infor- mation on the latest happenings at Troy State. If you are from Troy State, we would like to hear from you. Please send your data to the following address. AFROTC Det. 017 17th Cadet Gp. Alumni Ass'n Troy State University Troy, Ala. 36081 Phone: (205) 566-5115 Roll Call We are trying to locate former Air Force members who served with the 504th Bomb Group flying 8-29s from Tinian during World War II . A small group of these veterans got together this past summer to form the 504th Bomb Group Association. We meet occasionally to reminisce, renew old friendships, and memorialize those who gave their all in that conflict. Any former veterans based on Tin- ian with the 504th Bomb Group who wish to join our association should send their name, address, squadron, and duty assignment to the address below. B. King Martin 504th Bomb Group Ass'n 2760 Onyx St. Eugene, Ore. 97403 I would like to correspond with any- one who knew my father, Maj. Murray L. Smith, USAF. He was killed as the result of an 0-2 crash at Binh Thuy AB, Vietnam. My father entered active duty in 1955 and served as a T-33 instructor pilot with the 3550th Pilot Training Wing at Moody AFB, Ga., from 1961-64. In Vietnam, he flew 0-1 Es and O- 2s as a forward air controller. His crash occurred on December 12, 1967. I would greatly appreciate any infor- mation . A1C Gary D. Smith, USAF 1000 Pine Ave. , #111 Redlands, Calif. 92373 I would like some assistance in lo- cating a long-lost friend . His name is George Richard Ludlow. We graduat- ed from the aviation cadet program together and went on to fly combat tours as 8-24 pilots in the ETO. We corresponded for a time after the war, but I have since lost all contact with him. Any assistance that anyone can fur- nish would be most appreciated. Lt. Col. George T. Lumsden, USAF (Ret.) P. 0 . Box 27 Mauston, Wis. 53948 I'm looking for any information on the whereabouts of then-Lt. George Cunningham, who served with me in the 7503d Air Support Squadron, Third Air Force, at Brize Norton, En- gland, during 1951 and 1952. Anyone having any information on his current status is asked to contact me at the address below. "Tag" Basinger 333 W. First St. Dayton , Ohio 45402 Phone: (513) 224-7432 Collectors' Corner I have a manufacturer's model of the Grumman F11 F Tiger used by the Navy's Blue Angels aerobatic flying team . It was acquired in the early 1940s by my father, who worked for Grumman in Bethpage, N. Y. I am interested in finding out the value of the model and might consid- er selling it. Joan 0. Behrle 6 Lyncliff Rd . Hampton Bays, N. Y. 11946 We would like to request the dona- tion of any military history books, es- pecially any on early Air Force history. If anyone has a library or just a col- lection of such works, we would be happy to send a receipt for purposes of tax deductions, but we cannot af- ford to purchase any books. Please contact the address below. Dr. Lewis Towles History Department Central Wesleyan College Central, S. C. 29630 I am a collector of pictures of mod- ern fighters. I would especially like to obtain any information as to where I could get some pictures of F-111, F-16 , A-7 , A-10, and F-14 aircraft. If necessary, I can pay for such pictures. Please contact me at the address below. Maj. Louis E. Droste, USAF (Ret.) 8 Hillcrest Dr. Plainville, Mass. 02762 17 A GREAT SOLUTl<>l'I DOESN'T HAVE TOBE COMPLICATED Sometimes the best solution is the simplest It's an easy concept to agree with. But in today's systems environment, where the atmosphere encourages more complex and costly solutions, it's being increasingly overlooked . Grumman Data Systems is trying to reverse that trend. Our informa- tion processing systems optimum performance at the lowest life-cycle cost, yet they remain simple and user-friendly. In 01, CIM, computerized test, engineering and scientific, and management information systems, we've established an enviable record for building systems that are both cost effective and responsive to the user's needs. To accomplish this, we've become leaders in advanced research and development in such areas as CUSTOM SOLUTIONSfor Managing Information networking, computer graphics, machine intelligence, fault tolerant, command support systems, and the Ada software language. A measure of our success comes from having an unbiased point of view. We have nationwide facilities that support our customers with total services that include information processing services, multi-vendor hardware and software maintenance, training, data base and micrographic publishing, and facilities management. Our reputation for solving complex problems-simply-has made us the fastest growing division of the Grumman Corporation. For further information about any of our capabilities, contact Wesley R. Stout, Director, Technical Services at (516) 682-8500. Grumman Data Systems GRUMMAN ,') ,, • A 1eg 1s1e,e<1 1raallfl1 ark ol G1umman Corpora11on DATA GENERAL ASKS: ARE YOU PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH YESTERDAY'S TECHNOLOGY? FOR ADVANCED COMPUTER SYSTEMS , TALK TO US. IT'S WHY SO MANY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS HAVE CHOSEN DATA GENERAL. Go ve rnment bu siness is to o criti- cal to be taken for gr anted. Too much depends on it . No wonder nin eteen of the top tw enty U.S. def ense co ntractors have bought a Data Ge ne ra l system. As have all the Arm ed Servic es and most major departm ents of the federal government. And to date, nearly thirty U.S. Sena te o ffi ces a nd co mmittees have ch os en Da ta General. TODAY'S BEST VALUE Why such unanimity? Because Data Gen e ral o ff e rs a co mpl e te ra nge of co mputer solutions for government program s, with one of the best price/ perform ance ratios in the industr y. From o ur powerful superminis to th e DATA GENERAL/One'" portable. From un surpassed software to our CEO ®office automation sy stem. Plus complete syst e ms for Ada ®a nd Multi Level Se cure Operating Sy ste ms , and a strong commitment to TEMPEST. All Da ta Gene ral systems have full upward compatibility. And because th ey adhere to internation al standards, our systems protect your existing equipment investmen t. We give you the most cost-e ff ect ive compa ti b ilit y wit h IBM outside of !BM- and the easiest to set up and us e. SOLID SUPPORT FOR THE FUTURE We b ac k our systems with co m- pl e te ser vi ce a nd suppo rt. As well as an inv estment in research and deve l- opm ent well above th e industry no rm . So in stead of chancing yesterday's technology, tak e a cl oser loo k at the comp ut er co mpa ny tha t keeps you a ge neration ahead . Writ e: Data Gene ral, Federa l Sys tems Divi sion. C-228, 4400 Computer Dri ve, Westboro , MA 01580. Orcall 1- 800-DATAGEN . t • Data General ., ~ . a Generation ahead.C> 1985 Data Ge neral Corp,, West bor o. MA Ada is a regi sler ecl lrade mar k or lhe Depa rtmenl uf De fense (OUSD RE-AI PO) DATA GENERAL/One isa lra d emark and CEO is a ,egislered lrademar k ol Dala Ge neral Corpor;,11011 IN FOCUS ••• The Missile Debate Goes On By Edgar Ulsamer, SENIOR EDITOR (POLICY & TECHNOLOGY) Strategic modernization is still the top defense priori ty, but there is still substantial disagreement about the best size and configuration tor the Midgetman ICBM. Washington, D. C., Apr. 28 Senior Pentagon of- ficials, including the Air Force's top lead- ers, leave no room to doubt that strate- gic force moderni- zation must and will remain the overrid- ing national securi- ty objective in the years ahead . In both the new POM-the program objective memorandum setting forth the Pen- tagon's and the services' program goals for FY ' 88 and beyond-and in congressional testimony on the FY '87 defense authorization request, the commitment is crystal clear to sup- port, at all cost, such pivotal strategic programs as the deployment of a sec- ond fifty Peacekeeper ICBMs in con- cert with vigorous R&D on a smaller, mobile-based ICBM (the SICBM, or Midgetman), expeditiously to develop and field the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB, or "Stealth"}, and to deploy without delay the stealthy ad- vanced cruise missile (ACM) . In joint testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, acting Air Force Secretary Edward C. Ald- ridge, Jr., and USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Charles A. Gabriel reiterated the Air Force's "strong" support for the second fifty MX missiles, pointing out that the "Peacekeeper test program has completed eleven launches suc- cessfully, underscoring the validity of this system to maintain the viability of the land-based ICBM force as a deter- rent into the next century." But adding these "prompt" and highly ac- curate weapons to the US strategic deterrence forces is not enough, they pointed out. There is also a clear-cut need for the SICBM, which, "with its single-warhead design, supports sta- AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 bility objectives by decreasing indi- vidual target value and by increasing the survivability of (the ICBM) leg of the triad. The SICBM's light weight makes it compatible with a broad range of more survivable basing modes, particularly mobile options." The Air Force, they explained under questioning, is hesitant to increase the weight of the SICBM beyond the currently proposed ceiling of about 37 ,000 pounds-already upped from the originally stipulated 30,000 pounds-primar ily because of the re- sultant weight increase of the hard- ened mobile launcher (HML). That, in turn, could impair mobility and, hence, survivability of the weapon. As a rule of thumb , each additional pound in the weight of the missile means an increase in the HML's weight by two pounds. According to the latest Air Force estimates, the mobility of the HML- which is hardened to resist about thir- ty pounds per square inch (psi) of overpressure and must be capable of operating at speeds of up to thirty miles an hour-is likely to degrade appreciably if the combined weight of the vehicle and the missile goes be- yond 220,000 pounds. Senior OSD of- ficials and influential members of Congress contest this view and argue that further research is necessary. This group holds that it might be pos- sible to retain full mobility of the HML at a gross weight of about 250,000 pounds. This divergence of views concerning basic SICBM parameters within the defense community is of fundamental importance because it bears directly on the feasibility of MIRVing the missile with two or three warheads rather than holding the de- sign to a single-warhead configura- tion. A recently completed report of the Defense Science Board's Deutch Pan- el (named for its chairman, MIT scien- tist John Deutch) urged go-ahead for the SICBM program , with the mis- sile's weight to be held to 37,000 pounds. Top Defense Department of- ficials, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, rejected some of the key conclusions of that report. In the view of some Air Force ex - perts, retaining the presently pro- posed configuration would enhance "program stability." AFSC Command- er Gen. Lawrence A. Skantze asserted recently, for instance, that while the Defense Department had every right to look at options beyond the single- warhead configuration, AFSC, as the developer of the SICBM, on the other hand favored the "virtue of program stability." The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), also weighed in on the side of safeguarding the integrity of the SICBM program, especially the initial operational capability (IOC) sched- uled for 1992. In a letter to the Depart- ment of the Air Force, Chairman As- pin commented that "it's time to bend metal, not float paper." Asserting that he agreed with the Air Force and the Deutch Panel on the desirability of upping the weight limit of the SICBM to 37,000 pounds-and thereby vir- tually assuring rescission of Con- gress's 1983 stricture against increas- ing the weight of the weapon beyond 33 ,000 pounds-Representative As- pin inveighed against OSD officials who seek to broaden the program 's baseline to include heavier MIRVed options. One proposal, he claimed, is to spend SICBM program funds on SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, "a rather curious trade-off, because SDI was conceived by the President to protect people, not our ICBMs." Ac- cording to Chairman Aspin , other Pentagon elements want "to halt building missiles while OSD builds more paper studies on which missiles to build . It is hard to figure how any- one will learn more from these studies than [have] the distinguished groups that have already considered the is- sue in depth. " He capped his letter with the contention that national se- curity "will be best served if Congress and [the Air Force) join as partners in a unified approach" to the Midget- man program. The worst circumstance, he warned, would be for Congress and the Air Force to agree on a 37 ,000- 21 pound weight limit and for OSD, at the program review scheduled for De- cember 1986, to decide that it "likes an 80,000-pound MIRVed Midgetman. Then it's back to the drawing boards again for your engineers. And if some in the [Defense Department] have their way, next year the Administration will zero out Midgetman funds and boost SDI." Such an eventuality, which he termed not implausible, evokes the "basing-mode-of-the- month syndrome" and the associated technological filibusters that para- lyzed the MX Peacekeeper program for years in the past decade, he claimed. OSD termed key elements of Chair- man Aspin's letter incorrect, however. The principal spokesman for the forces arrayed at the other side of the argument is Under Secretary of De- fense for Research and Engineering Donald Hicks, who says that "I don't have a position, but I [do] have a re- sponsibility." He told AIR FORCE Maga- zine that "we don't have the data to decide how heavy the SICBM can be without losing mobility. You can hear numbers coming out of the Air Force study that say if the HML is heavier than 230,000 pounds-which might limit [the missile] to 50,000 pounds- you would lose mobility. 1 don't know that number, and neither do they." Secretary Hicks was critical of the notion that it would be impolitic to bring out facts that tend to "screw up the consensus" in Congress that, in concert with the White House 's Scowcroft Commission, launched the SICBM program. "I don't buy the no- tion that if you disturb that consen- sus, you lose everything." Congress, Secretary Hicks suggested, is willing to listen to rational approaches re- flecting valid trade-offs and "sound engineering decisions." Dr. Hicks is also not cowed by the contention that a broadening of the program's baseline-and any sched- ule slippages that might ensue- would have unacceptable conse- quences: "I don't [think] we would be in any grave danger if that were to happen-say a slippage of a year or maybe two. We have lots of other ways to deter the Soviets at the present time." Because he sees no pressing need to rush the SICBM program, Dr. Hicks feels there is potential benefit in a reexamination of the program's baseline. The results might be cost savings of "at least $8 billion and a better system." AFSC's Ballistic Missile Office re- cently initiated modification pro- grams of the two mobile test vehicles (MTVs) that within two months will permit tests of dummy missiles 22 IN FOCUS ••• weighing up to 52,000 pounds. But BMO has not been authorized as yet to seek industry proposals for a SICBM that can accommodate up to three warheads, along with penetra- tion aids, and that would weigh signif- icantly more than 37,000 pounds. "Growing" the missile beyond 37,000 pounds can't be achieved by "stretching" the length of the design, according to BMO. Further growth of Midgetman, therefore, necessitates configurations with diameters great- er than the forty-six-inch level of the baseline design . Such a change, in turn, might require new request for proposals (RFPs) to industry. Those who favor increasing the weight and size of Midgetman cite an- other reason for rejecting the argu- ment of the status quo proponents that revising the RFPs would slow down the program in an intolerable manner. Congress, for a number of reasons, is already certain to reduce and stretch out the SICBM program's funding level, so delays incurred as a result of baseline changes would be- come meaningless. Reiterating that he holds no pre- conceived notions about what consti- tutes the most militarily effective con- figuration of the SICBM, Secretary Hicks stressed that Air Force studies to date had to be confined to a single- RV missile limited initially to a weight of 30,000 pounds (plus or minus ten percent). This was then upped to the 37,00D-40,000 pound range to allow for penetration aids. As a result, "They don't have data for any excur- sions beyond that point." But by the time Secretary Hicks makes his recommendations to Sec- retary Weinberger at the DSARC in December, "I want to be certain that I can say we have looked at alternatives in the baseline and that this is what we found from our technical evaluation. If [the findings say) that it is a three- RV, 70,000-pound missile, so be it. If we find that it should be a 50,000- pound, two-RV plus penaids [pene- tration aids] missile or that we can only [accommodate a design weigh- ing] between 37,00D-40,000 pounds because of mobility considerations, that's okay too." The Defense Depart- ment's overriding concern is to accu- mulate incontrovertible data on cost and performance factors associated with a range of options so that con- gressional critics several years hence won't be able to "discover" a cheaper solution and then scuttle the program in midstream, he asserted . Current arguments about the op- timal configuration of Midgetman re- volve around the Strategic Air Com- mand's unchallenged requirement for 1,500 ICBM warheads capable of promptly destroying hardened tar- gets. A thousand of these RVs were to be carried by 100 MIRVed MX Peace- keepers. Congress has so far autho- rized the deployment of only fifty MXs, with the fate of the second fifty in limbo. The remaining 500 war- heads are to be carried by a surviv- able, probably mobile-based SICBM . The cost of 500 single-RV SICBMs is probably in the $50 billion range, compared to about $2 billion for a like number of RVs carried by the second fifty Peacekeepers, Secretary Hicks contends. He agrees, however, that the SICBM has advantages in terms of survivability: "I favor mobility, but, of course, it costs real money." He em- phasized that he had "no desire to kill" the SICBM program. Secretary Hicks was equally firm in his convic- tion that " we simply have got to have the second fifty Peacekeepers," the widely held notion that the political deck in Congress is stacked against such an action notwithstanding. A key argument for MIRVing the SICBM, Secretary Hicks contends, is that the Soviets would have to bar- rage-bomb the SICBM deployment areas, using a fixed number of war- heads regardless of whether "gener- ated '.'..areas.contailled.a.gllrennumhe ._____ _ of single-RV SICBMs, half that number of two-RV weapons, or only one-third that number of three-RV missiles. "The Soviets would have to put thirty psi over the entire area. It makes no difference if there are twice as many or four times as many SICBMs in there," assuming that the dash speed and mobility of the vari- ous missiles remain identical. Claiming that this contention stands up to rigorous analysis, he said that while the price of attack in terms of expended warheads remains constant to the Soviets, the US cost of fielding a force of SICBMs carrying 500 warheads would go down consid- erably if that force consisted of 250 two-warhead missiles compared to 500 single-RV missiles. Under either condition, the survivability of the US SICBM force is the same, he added. The President of the MITRE Corp., Robert R. Everett, a member of the Defense Science Board's Deutch SICBM Panel, concurred with Dr. Hicks's contention concerning fixed Soviet attack costs in his dissenting AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 comments on the group's report. "Survivability comes from the area of mobility, not from the number of mis- siles. Changing the number of mis- siles does not change the probability of survival per missile." The MITRE executive argued that the "current plans for basing SICBM would proba- bly permit a larger missile, perhaps [70,000 pounds) with three warheads, (in turn) permitting either a substan- tially less expensive 500-warhead pro- gram or a 1,000-warhead program at the same cost." He also pointed out that "it is unclear at the moment whether a (70,000-pound) missile would be less mobile than a (40 ,000)- pound missile," adding that if the full complement of 100 Peacekeepers were to be deployed, "we could take the time to do the mobile [missile) right." With a "sensible MX program . . . under way, I would undertake an orderly program for a mobile missile, not necessarily the SICBM," Mr. Ever- ett asserted . While, at this time, the cost figures for the SICBM remain relatively soft- and vary with various mobility options that have not yet been resolved-most experts agree that 500 single-RV mis- siles would have a price tag in the $50 billion range (FY '84 dollars) and that IN FOCUS ••• 1,000 might cost about $80 billion. The figures for the MX Peacekeeper- in contrast-are well understood, ac- cording to Secretary Hicks. To deploy an additional fifty Peacekeepers on top of those already authorized-fifty for deployment and 123 spares- would cost about $2 billion if they were housed in upgraded Minuteman silos or about $8 billion if they were based in superhard silos. If all 100 Peacekeepers were to be deployed in superhard silos, the over- all cost increase would come to about $15 billion, according to Dr. Hicks. He defined superhard silos as those at least twenty-five times harder than the current Minuteman silos and ar- ranged in "patterned arrays," mean- ing a spacing scheme that compli- cates the timing problems for the attacker. The combination of super- hard silos and patterned arrays would ensure the survivability of MX for "a lot of years." On the other hand, if the choice is to ensure the Peacekeeper's viability over the longest term possible, it might be advisable to resort to a "carry-hard" basing mode for MX. This would entail shifting the missile in its integral canister, which would be hardened to the 10,000 psi-plus range, within an array of low-cost shelters in a shell-game fashion. The "carry-hard" basing scheme, accord- ing to Dr. Hicks, would extend the ef- fectiveness of MX by "a lot more years." He acknowledged that even- tually-assuming an all-out sustained effort-the Soviets could overcome "carry-hard basing, but this would also be true with regard to a [mobile) SICBM." A new concept for basing MX, ini- tially dubbed "extra-hard," is gaining support rapidly among some Air Force, OSD, and congressional ex- perts. The underlying notion is sub- stantial modification of existing Min- uteman silos to achieve hardness levels approaching those of super- hard silos. The price of attacking ex- tra-hard silos in terms of the Soviet force "drawdown" might approach that exacted by the superhard basing mode, according to initial Air Force and Defense Nuclear Agency cal cu la- tions . The pluses that accrue to " extra-hard " compared to " super- hard" are lower cost-perhaps only half that of the latter-and the ability to remain in compliance with the SALT terms that preclude a volume increase of existing silos in excess of thirty-two percent. The Pentagon, Dr. Hicks pointed out, does not plan to " make a run " in Congress for the second fifty Peace- keepers in FY '86, but will definitely do so in FY '87. No decision has been made as yet, however, on the type of basing mode-whether regular, ex- tra-hard , superhard , carry-hard, or some other approach-that the Air Force and the Pentagon will recom- mend at that time . In the bomber field, the Air Force- with the full support of OSD and the Administration-is demurring con- gressional offers to provide $200 mil- lion in supplemental funding this year to retain the option to buy additional quantities of 8-18s instead of com- mitting to the acquisition of 123 "Stealth " bombers. SAC's Commander in Chief, Gen . Larry D. Welch , for instance, told Con- gress that given a choice between ad- ditional 8-18s and AT8s, his com- mand unhesitatingly would opt for the latter. He s pe cifically pointed out that in conventional warfare missions involving heavily defended airspace in third countries, the elusive AT8 can be counted on to get in , do the job, and get out safely under circum- stances in which the risks of using either 8-52s or B-1s would be unac- ceptably high. (According to some preliminary analyses by USAF and OSD, it appears that one ATB could have performed the task carried out by all the USAF and Navy aircraft dur- ing the recent raids against Libya.) Dr. Hicks , in similar fashion, re- jected al legations that AT8 is too val u- able an asset to use in conventional warfare missions : "Th is is cate - gorically not true. The capability of the ATB is superb as an airplane, and in my view it will be a very important element not only of our strategic but also of our conventional capabil i- ties. " In their joint testimony, Secre- tary Aldridge and General Gabriel as- serted that AT8 "will take over as our primary penetrator in the mid-1990s, when Soviet ai r defenses become [even] more sophisticated ." They an- nounced that the program is "ahead of original schedule and below pro- jected cost." The newfound cong ressional largess with regard to supplemental 8-1 B funds, in the view of some Cap- itol Hill pund its , is meant in part to force Secretary Weinberger to declas- sify the ATB 's costs. The only unclas- sified hint on Stealth costs that OSD has aired so far is that the AT8 's pro- duction costs , expressed in constant dollars, would not exceed those of the 8-1 B by more than three percent. Washington Observations * Defense Secretary Caspar Wein- berger recently disclosed a series of significant technological advances that appears to boost the feasibility of the Strategic Defense Initiative in a major way. Specifically , " The Air Force has recently completed suc- cessful tests of booster rocket tech- nology for nonnuclear space-based interceptor vehicles. This means that small, inexpensive boosters, needed in quantity for an effective space- based defense system, are feasible." He also announced that "a recently developed technique now makes it possible to locate accurately a target which previously might have been ob- scured by exhaust radiation ." Lastly, " Recent free-electron laser experi- ments at [the Lawrence] Livermore Lab[oratory] have shown power effi- SCIENCE/SCOPE® A high-frequency tactical radio for military vehicles and base stations is proving extremely reliable in the field. Operating on average more than 3,000 hours between failures, the AN/GRC-213 high-frequency radio makes extensive use of large-scale integrated circuits, conservatively rated components, and proven military equipment packaging techniques. Should it need repairing or maintenance in the field, an operator can replace any of the three basic subsystems in seconds. The average repair time in the field is less than 30 minutes. In production at Hughes Aircraft Company for the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the AN/GRC-213 is available for international needs. An innovative digital receiver is being developed to alert military aircraft when they are approaching enemy radars and electronic warfare systems, thereby putting them at less risk while on a mission. The device, designed for electronic support measures (ESM), will be approximately 1/20 the weight and substantially smaller than current receive rs. It will search for, intercept, record, analyze, and locate sources of radiated electromagnetic energy. The receiver can store this information. Or, if an enemy signal poses a threat, it can pass this information along to another type of electronic warfare system, such as a jamming device. Hughes is developing the receiver with independent research and development funds. The U.S. Marine Corps has a new one-two punch for close air support with a computerized weapon delivery system and the laser-guided Maverick missile. The Angle Rate Bombing Set (ARBS), mounted in the nose of the AV-8B and A-4M aircraft, lets a pilot deliver guided and unguided weapons and direct gunfire with unprecedented accuracy. ARBS cuts the time an aircraft is exposed to enemy fire by helping the pilot hit a target on his first run and avoiding the need for other passes. Laser Maverick locks on to the reflection of a coded laser beam aimed at a target by ground troops or an aircraft crew. The air-to-surface missile can also be carried by F/ A-18 Hornet Strike Fighters and A-6E aircraft. Both ARBS and Laser Maverick are in production at Hughes. A cryogenic refrigerator designed to cool infrared sensors has passed a test equivalent to operating three years in space. The Vuilleumier cycle cooler, set in operation at twice its normal speed in order to simulate a design life of five years, has passed the year-and-a-half point of flawless operation. The device will be used with infrared sensors in space for applications such as defense and geological surveys. The sensors must be chilled to near absolute zero to maintain adequate sensitivity to low- temperature thermal radiation. The VM cooler, developed by Hughes, is believed to be the only one of its type to have performed this long at such low temperatures. 1\venty years ago on June 1, Surveyor 1 made the first soft landing on the moon, giving scientists their first close-up look of the lunar surface and blazing a trail for the manned Apollo missions three years later. The three-legged spacecraft, built by Hughes, landed one second ahead of the originally predicted time and just nine miles from the predicted target point after traveling 240,000 miles. In the following eight months, Surveyor televised 11,150 pictures, photographed the solar corona of the setting sun, made a color composite photo of the lunar surface, and measured the hardness of the lunar surface. By January 1968, four other Surveyors had made soft landings on the moon. They provided detailed scientific information about the physical and chemical character of lunar materials and added immeasurably to the understanding of the physical processes that shape the moon's surface. For more information write to: P.O Box 45068, Los Angeles, CA 90045-0068 HUGH ES © 1986 Hughes Aircraft Company AIRCRAFT COMPANY Subsidiary of GM Hughes Electronics IN FOCUS ••• ciencies needed for effective strate- gic defense and ballistic missile de- fense. And experiments in Hawaii have shown that we can remove the distorting effects of the atmosphere on a laser beam, thus solving a prob- lem considered insurmountable by many of SOi 's critics." * The White House, in a landmark national security directive (NSDD 222), requested the Pentagon lo pro- vide a broad range of options for re- sponses to Soviet violations of arms accords. Meant to be available for im- plementation by the end of the year- when the US butts up against major SALT ceilings-the Pentagon is to document various proposals that can serve as effective responses to Soviet treaty violations. To be included are options for a mobile Minuteman-size ICBM, upgrades of MX, adjustments in the SICBM, and the wider use of stealthy platforms for strategic nu- clear purposes. * The Military Airlift Command 's Commander in Chief, Gen. Duane H. Cassidy, came down four-square dur- ing recent congressional testimony in favor of the C-17 and against the ac- quisition of additional numbers of C-5Bs: "Additional C-5s will not pro- vide the capability we need and will saddle us with costs we cannot af- ford." Conversely, "From cost and manpower savings to military utility, the C-17 is the key to providing our theater commanders the airlift sup- port they need. It is for this very rea- son that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service Chiefs, and the Unified Commanders have unani- mously endorsed the C-17," he told the Senate Armed Services Commit- tee's Subcommittee on Seapower and Force Projection. MAC, in concert with Air Force Sys- tems Command and the Lockheed- Georgia Co., recently explored the potential for enhancing the C-5 fleet in a "series of backing and heavy- weight demonstrations," he testified. The conclusions from these studies and demonstrations were that " back- ing cannot be planned or effectively used in an operational environment, except in extreme emergencies. The heavyweight takeoff demonstration showed that the C-5 can take off at 840,000 pounds if procedures are AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 modified to accept the increased safety risk of a reduced three-engine climb gradient and the increased maintenance cost of an additional thrust rating ," according to General Cassidy. He added, however, that " even if that were acceptable, the ca - pability has a very limited potential application [because of] the extreme runway lengths required for takeoff." A comprehensive analysis of airlift requirements and associated options that is known as the USAF Airlift Mas- ter Plan, General Cassidy said, showed conclusively that the life-cy- cle costs of a C-17 fleet would be " $16 billion cheaper and [would save] 13 ,000 manpower spaces over a com- parable C-5 option. " Further, the abili- ty of the C-17 to bypass main operat- ing bases and fly directly into final destination airfields allows "us to re- define the way we do business .... Direct delivery is not a 'nice-to-have' capability-it is an ever-increasing military must," the General said . ■ 27 . ,., -- .... ,. ~, ,,. --· _,_,_, .,_ ~- ,- ·-----li'Jlk11 Resupply armor right to the front. "We need help bad. And now! We're cut off." With Hercules, that radio message can bring armor and decisive firepower right to the men who need it, no matter where they are. Even if there's not a level spot for miles. Because anywhere is where the Herc can deliver. Anytime. C-130 Hercules: the affordable true tactical airlifter. Avionics . It's just taking off. And the future belongs to those who provide new answers to old questions-to Eaton. Growing into the future. Automotive • Electronics Defense • Capital Goods CAPITOL HILL By Brian Green, AFA DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH Washington, D. C., Apr. 28 April 15 Budget Deadline Passes The April 15 deadline for Senate and House passage of a budget reso- lution-the first major deadline im- posed by the Gramm-Rudman-Hol- lings budget legislation-came and went with no action by either body. The Senate Budget Committee ap- proved a measure that included $295 billion for defense (an inflation-ad- justed freeze by committee calcula- tion and $25 billion less than the Rea- gan Administration request). The full Senate has not yet voted on that spending package, and the House Budget Committee has yet to approve its resolution. The budget is still being held up by political maneuver- ing by the House, Senate, and White House. There is no penalty for missing this deadline, and many staffers profess a lack of concern. Failure to approve an overall budget, however, has had the effect of delaying the mark-up of the defense authorization bills by the armed services committees, which have no defense spending level to use for guidance. Secretary Aldridge Supports SICBM Acting Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, Jr., in his first appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) in that capacity, stated his strong sup- port for the Small ICBM program, but saw little chance that the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC) would approve a substantial increase in the missile's size when the Council reviews the program in De- cember. He argued that 37,000-40,- 000 pounds is the right size for the small missile and would be sufficient to permit the addition of penetration aids to defeat active Soviet missile de- fenses. The SICBM is now limited by Con- gress to a maximum of 33,000 pounds. According to the Secretary, DSARC approval of a larger small mis- sile "could happen ," but would re- quire " unchallengeable reasons." AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 Push for Acquisition Reform The President's Blue-Ribbon Com- mission on Defense Management- the so-called Packard Commission- has found , in the words of William Perry, former Under Secretary of De- fense for Research and Engineering under President Carter, that the de- fense acquisition system is "unac- ceptably inefficient. " In his appear- ance before the SASC Defense Ac- quisition Policy Subcommittee with Commission Chairman David Pack- ard and Jacques Gansler, a Commis- sion consultant, he stated, "Major weapon systems cost too much, they take too long to develop, and by the time they're fielded, they incorporate obsolete technology." The Commis- sion's findings on specific problems and its recommended solutions took place against the backdrop of a pleth- ora of proposed legislation. The Commission found that the current acquisition system promotes overspecification ("goldplating") by defining requirements apart from the technological and fiscal environ- ments. Program approval occurs in Acting Afr Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., strongly supports the Small ICBM program. what Mr . Perry described as a "huckster environment," where eager contractors are driven to understate costs. The go-ahead decision is taken in a competitive atmosphere that dis- courages cost realism and chal- lenges to unrealistic requirements. Program managers, according to the Commission, thus enter full-scale de- velopment with inappropriate re- quirements tied to unrealistic prices, with advocates pushing add-ons and critics trying to kill the program. The key to turning around the prob- lems, the Commission findings sug- gest, lies in centralization of policy and decentralization of execution. The Commission found that suc- cessful programs were marked by de- velopment times of four to five years- about half the average. They all share certain key traits: short, clear lines of command; strict adherence to pro- gram performance, cost, and sched- ule baselines; small, high-quality staffs; limited reporting require- ments; good communication with the end user; and extensive and intensive use of prototyping and operational testing. Institutional changes recom- mended by the Commission include the creation of a new Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and a new Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with extensive acquisition expe- rience. To shorten lines of command, a Service Acquisition Executive should be appointed by each service. They in turn would appoint a number of senior Program Executive Officers, who would manage a defined number of programs and to whom the pro- gram managers would report directly. In the Commission's scheme of things, the Joint Requirements Man- agement Board (JAMB), cochaired by the new Under Secretary and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, would define weapon requirements for de- velopment and would decide on cost and performance trade-offs . The JRMB would subsequently deter- mine, based on early prototyping and testing, whether a program is afford- able and whether it should enter full- scale development. 31 If approved for FSD, DoD should in- stitutionalize baselining, and the Commission strongly recommended that Congress provide multiyear fund- ing for such programs through lim- ited production, thus providing cru- cial program stability. After thorough testing, the JRMB could then deter- mine whether the program should proceed to high-rate production; if approved, the Commission again rec- ommended multiyear funding. The Commission also recommended in- creased use of commercial products and competition and an improvement in quality of acquisition personnel by using flexible personnel manage- ment policies. The Commission noted that the principal contributions of Congress in acquisition reform would be in the creation of the new Under Secretary for Acquisition, approval of multiyear funding, and simplification and re- codification of federal laws governing acquisition. But it argued also that some of the congressional actions of the past have done more harm than good because of excessive attention to specific line items (micromanag- ing) and misguided reforms. The SASC Defense Acquisition Subcommittee approved on April 23 an omnibus defense acquisition bill that in many respects parallels the recommendations of the Packard Commission. The bill includes a mea- sure sponsored by Sen. Dan Quayle (R-lnd.) to give the service Secretaries authority to designate major defense acquisition programs as "enterprise programs." Programs so designated would be run by a specially selected, long-term program manager with special au- thority over his staff, reporting to only one official designated by the Secre- tary and supported by long-term funding through the first DSARC re- view. The shortened lines of com- mand, innovative personnel policies, and program stability are intended to promote greater efficiency. Also included in the bill are provi- sions that provide for the creation of an Under Secretary of Defense for Ac- quisition (sponsored by Sen. Alan Dixon, D-111.); encourage the Secre- tary of Defense and service Secre- taries to purchase off-the-shelf items "to the maximum extent practicable," rather than relying so heavily on equipment manufactured to military specification (sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.); and, pertaining to the so-called "revolving-door" issue, pro- hibit some senior defense officials from any contact with defense con- tractors regarding employment op- portunities for six months after the 32 , CU,IIOL HILL end of their government service but that at the same time provide sev- erance pay for those officials who are affected by these provisions (spon- sored by Senator Quayle). The subcommittee did not agree on legislation on an alternative person- nel system. The subcommittee did agree to consult with the Packard Commission concerning personnel reform. The Commission wrote favor- ably about a personnel experiment at the China Lake Naval Weapons Cen- ter, in which "recruitment and reten- tion of key civilians were correlated with pay, incentives, and advance- ment based on performance." Assis- tant Secretary of Defense for Acquisi- tion and Logistics James Wade has also testified in support of alternative personnel policies. The reform package must next be considered by the full SASC and other committees, such as the Government Operations Committee. In final form, it will be attached to either the FY '87 authorization bill or the Defense Re- organization Bill already approved by the SASC. The reorganization bill fo- cuses on the organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the defense agencies, combatant commands, and military departments. Key among its provi- sions is the creation of the post of Vice Chief of Staff, which is one of the recommendations made by the Pack- ard Commission. While the full House has also ap- proved a JCS reform bill, House legis- lation on acquisition reform is not so far along as in the Senate. Reps. Nick Mavroules (D-Mass.) and Dennis Hertel (D-Mich .) recently introduced a measure to create the post of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and a Defense Acquisition Corps, along the same lines as in the pro- posed Senate bill. Representative Mavroules has also introduced a bill to require DoD to "institutionalize baselining," a la the Packard Com- mission. Other measures reflect the interests of individual members. They include measures to abolish the Defense Lo- gistics Agency and the Defense Con- tract Audit Agency (DCAA) and to move their functions back to the ser- vices (Rep. Jim Courter [R-N. J.]); to abolish DCAA and transfer its func- tions to the General Accounting Of- fice (Rep. Jim Kolbe [R-Ariz.]); and to reduce the use of unpriced contracts by DoD (Rep. Ron Wyden [D-Ore.] and others). Action on the House side has been slowed somewhat by the ill health of the Chairman of the Investi- gations Subcommittee (which deals with reform legislation), Rep. Bill Nichols (D-Ala.). The reaction from the Administra- tion and DoD has been straightfor- ward. President Reagan signed a di- rective on April 1 instructing that virtually all of the Packard Commis- sion recommendations be imple- mented. DoD spokesmen indicate that the Administration is moving ag- gressively in that direction. Defense Department witnesses at congres- sional hearings have stressed that great progress has already been made over the past five years in defense management, but express general ap- proval of the thrust of the Commis- sion's proposals. Some congression- al staffers have speculated that Ad- ministration support has been predi- cated on a desire to head off even more radical reform proposals in Congress. While enthusiasm is apparently widespread, some cautionary notes are also being heard. Acquisition re- forms advocated by the Packard Com- mission could "effectively eliminate . .. Air Force Systems Command, but not the ... need for [it]," according to Gen. Robert T. Marsh, USAF (Ret.), a former AFSC commander (see "Packard's Partial Fix," p. 198, May '86 issue). Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Research, Development, and Logistics Thomas E. Cooper, in testimony on the Senate legislation, pointed out that the Air Force already benefits greatly from selective use of the enterprise program concept. He stressed the other roles Congress can play in acquisition reform: "Stable authorization and appro- priation .. . would significantly strengthen the designated programs. We believe that such congressional commitment to certain, selected pro- grams would provide stability, foster innovation, reduce deployment times, and, at the bottom line, save tax- payers' money." Rep. Charles Bennett (D-Fla.) warned that legislation could un- necessarily restrict other reform ac- tions and noted that some Commis- sion reforms were primarily "dramat- ic" in effect rather than substantive. Other critics of the Packard Commis- sion reforms have suggested that many of the organizational reforms amount to little more than changing the titles of people who already per- form the acquisition functions. ■ AIR FORCE Magazine / June 1986 Back on track. Anew General Motors performer shoulder a Detroit Diesel Allison improvements will increase the payload and the performance of future Ml13 variants. The M730 short-range air-defense missile carrier has been improved since it was first fielded by the U.S. Army in 1969. The capability of the M730s Chaparral missile system has increased, and so has its weight- 1200 pounds worth of better accuracy and electromagnetic pulse protection in the latest upgrade alone. A new General Motors power pack means the M730A2 will serve through the 1990s with greater reliability, higher efficiency, and lower support costs for the engine and transmission-without compromising vehicle performance. Matching engines and transmissions to ambitious military requirements is standard operating procedure at GMs Detroit Diesel Allison Division. We have been doing it for decades. For every branch of the service. For vehicles on tracks, on wheels, or on the water. For the U.S . and for its allies. For the Marine Corps, GM builds the Light Armored Vehicle, in all its variants, around a DOA power pack. Every new truck in the U.S . Army's fleet is driven by a GM engine or transmission-or both. Detroit Diesel engines or Allison trans- missions go into combat on track-laying vehicles ranging from the Mll3 to the Army's flagship Abrams Main Battle Tank. The Navy's Sea Fox fast patrol boats and Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) craft rely on Detroit Diesel engines. One reason for our success is our wide experience with chassis and powerplant manufacturers outside GM-we worked with FMC, for example, on the Mll3. A measure of that success is our acceptance on vehicles manufactured outside the U.S. Detroit Diesel Allison has established an international reputa- tion. We have proved our ability to provide our products with Integrated Logistics Support worldwide. power pack lets a veteran greater air-defense burden. Tomorrows technology is the target, and Detroit Diesel Allison is hitting it with research and development. Higher power density and mobility are important to armored vehicles. The Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) will be the state of the art. GM is developing the transmission component for AIPS: multiple speeds, full authority electronic control with diagnostic and prognostic capability; power hybrid brakes; hydrostatically controlled differential steering; throughput efficiencies in excess of 90%. Our commercial experience has already enhanced our contribution. Mastery of electronics and new materials will maximize engine effi- ciency. GM is already producing engines with Detroit Diesel Elec- tronic Controls. Simple chip changes will permit changing per- formance parameters. New sensors and controls will lead to prog- nostics and improved diagnostics. We've demonstrated a model of a Low Heat Rejection engine using ceramic components. We're at work on methanol-fuel technology, on turbocompounding, on hydraulic- assist turbocharging. We have mar- shalled $200 million behind plant technology to build the first diesel engine designed from the ground up with electronic controls. Detroit Diesel Allison Division. It's just one of the many resources at GM that are committed to providing the latest in tactical and strategic technology-on time and on cost. General Motors Defense. We're your ultimate ally in the fight for dependable, affordable defense. To enlist our aid, write to our Washington, D.C. office: General Motors, 1911 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 800, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209. THE ULTIMATE ALLY GENERAL MOTORS DEFENSE AERO PACE WORLDIncluding Bulletin Board Compiled by Jeffrey P. Rhodes, STAFF EDITOR Washington, D. C., May 5 * Still reeling from the destruction of Space Shuttle Challenger, the US space program suffered successive setbacks in early spring. On April 18, a Titan 34D booster rocket carrying a classified military payload exploded on launch at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., and on May 3, a Delta rocket with a weather satellite on board had to be destroyed because of an engine shut- down seventy-one seconds after lift- off from Cape Canaveral AFS, Fla . The April accident marked the sec- ond straight failure of a Titan 34D. The first, on August 28, 1985, had snapped a sequence of seven suc- cessfu I Titan 34D launches dating back to October 30, 1982. The second Titan 34D failure, cou- pled with the loss of Challenger and the grounding of the three remaining Shuttle orbiters, has depleted USAF's space-launching capability and as- sets to the extent that "this is really becoming a crisis for us," an Air Force spokesman declared. An investigative board headed by Brig. Gen . Nathan J. Lindsay, Com- mander of USAF's Eastern Space and Missile Center at Patrick AFB, Fla., was looking into the accident. A comparable panel that investigat- ed last year's Titan 34D accident found that the booster had suffered a massive oxidizer leak, a small fuel leak, and failure of its turbopump. The fuel leak could have been overcome, but either of the other two problems was bad enough in itself to have caused the rocket to fail, the investi- gative board reported. Last April's second Titan 34D failure raised questions about USAF's pro- gram to develop and procure ten larger, derivative Titan 34D-7 Comple- mentary Expendable Launch Vehi- cles (CELVs) for launching big pay- loads that only the Shuttle orbiters Atlantis and Discovery could now ac- commodate. High-priority Milstar communica- tions satellites are in this category. The first CELV, scheduled to be launched in late 1988, is earmarked to deploy a Milstar satellite. 36 As a result of the Challenger disas- ter, USAF recently indicated that it will need perhaps twenty Titan 34D-7 CELVs instead of the ten that it origi- nally contemplated. It is possible, however, that the growing doubts about the Titan 34Ds will extend to the Titan 34D-7 develop- ment program. The Air Force was not borrowing trouble in this regard. At this writing, it had no immediate plans to put a hold on the CELV program. "We'll find out what went wrong with the 34D, then we'll examine the 34D-7 program with our findings in mind," an Air Force spokesman ex- plained. The Delta loss was especially upset- ting to NASA, as the vehicle was con- sidered one of the most reliable in the inventory. Prior to the accident, Delta had successfully launched forty-three straight times over a decade and had a total of 178 launches to its credit. An eight-man investigating panel had been set up as this issue went to press. With the temporary grounding of the Shuttles, the Titan 34Ds, and now the Deltas, the US space program is left with only a handful of Atlas-Cen- taur and Scout launch vehicles. The Atlas-Centaurs are capable of lifting relatively heavy payloads, but the rockets are in short supply. The Scouts are for lightweight payloads, and all of those remaining vehicles have already been committed to spe- cific missions. * On April 16, a four-year-old Europe- an joint-venture program reached a major milestone as the Experimental Aircraft Program (EAP) technology demonstrator was rolled out at British Aerospace's (BAe) Warton Aero- drome. The aim of the EAP is to demon- stn,l.te the appli