Mr. ROSENTHAL. So the issue was whether it should be $50 million or $100 million or $300 million. Is that correct? That decision wasn't given to the President until March 22d.

General FISH. Sir, the President gave us the direction that we would provide air defense, specific systems. Then since the amount was incumbent upon the Jordanians' ability to fund

Mr. ROSENTHAL. The amount involved was consistent with their ability to fund?

General FISH [continuing]. Since they were going to have to fund the air defense package, we presented various options.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. As far as funding it?

General FISH. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. They are not paying for it.

General FISH. Yes, sir; they are paying for it.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Who is paying for it?

General FISH. The Jordanians would have to provide the funds. We were not. That is the point.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Saudi Arabia is putting up the money.

Mr. ATHERTON. The Jordanians are getting the funds from a friendly Arab state, which has been identified as Saudi Arabia.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Identified by whom?

Mr. ATHERTON. In the press. And that is correct.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. It is correct?

Mr. ATHERTON. It is correct.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. You don't mean to tell us you were holding up this deal to find out whether they could get 100, 200, or a billion dollars from Saudi Arabia?

General FISH. No, sir; that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the decision as Secretary Atherton has testified to provide air defense systems of this nature to the Jordanians was made earlier. The date is how long it took us to put the package together. But as far as various options go with various funding levels, that takes time to prepare.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Was funding, in your judgment, ever a real problem?

General FISH. Yes, sir. Since we were in negotiations with the Jordanians, their ability to get the funds was a problem. Of course also there was a question of what we were willing to recommend to them. Actually it is a much lower number than they would have preferred to have.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Atherton, the New York Times of Friday, June 13, 1975, has a story from Amman, Jordan. I quote it as follows:

Syria and Jordan, which have often been at loggerheads in the past, announced they had formed a permanent joint high commission to coordinate military, political, economic and cultural policies. The Commission will include military officers as well as civilians and will be headed by the countries' premiers. Military coordination was a main topic in their talks, according to well-informed sources.

In your view, is that something less than a joint military command? Mr. ATHERTON. I think it is very much less; yes.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yes. And reasonable men can disagree as to how much less it is.

57-645-75——2

Mr. ATHERTON. Obviously that is true. But I think the important thing is our judgment that Jordan has not relinquished the decisionmaking over its own policies to another government. It will make its decision on the basis of what it considers national interest.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Let me ask one question and then turn the floor over to Mr. Winn. This joint coordinating team-let us not use the word "command"-does it make it easier for Syria to obtain these Hawk missiles from Jordan?

Mr. ATHERTON. No, sir.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Your opinion is that it does not.

Mr. ATHERTON. In my opinion that question simply does not arise. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you.

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Winn?

Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

By the questions Mr. Rosenthal has been asking, I would like a better description, if you could give it to us, of how sophisticated the Hawk and Vulcan systems are.

Mr. ATHERTON. Let me ask General Fish to address that.

General FISH. Yes, sir. The Hawk is on a par with similar systems in the area that have been provided. On our side we provided Hawk to the Israelis. It is on a par with the SA-6 that has been provided by the Soviet Union to Iraq, Syria, and Egypt.

The basic difference between the systems is that the Hawk is only road-mobile and requires about 50 trucks and trailers to move one battery, whereas the SA-6 is an off-road mobile track vehicle. It can be moved very quickly.

I cannot get into the ranges, the probabilities of success or things of this nature except in executive session, which I would hope very much that we would be able to do, so that I could provide those figures to you.

Mr. FASCELL. Without objection, why don't we just put the descriptions that are in Jane's with respect to the weapons system in the record.3

Mr. WINN. The argument has been made that providing the Hawk and the Vulcan systems to Jordan would constitute a threat to Israel. As I understand you. General Fish, you say that Israel has the Hawk itself?

General FISH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINN. And what other countries have it? Iraq?

General Fist. No. A comparable system to the Hawk is the SA-6. It is a Soviet-supplied system that has been supplied to Iraq, Egypt, and Syria.

Mr. WINN. I see.

General FISH. In fact the Hawk missile system is now currently in or on order by Israel, Greece, Iran, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Kuwait. Spain, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, and Denmark.

Mr. WINN. I would like to have your opinion and the Secretary's opinion of whether the sale of the proposed arms quantitatively would alter the arms balance between Israel and its Arab neighbors to a real significant degree.

2 See appendix, page 105 for the article referred to.

General FISH. It is difficult to get into that without specifics in an executive session. I think it is appropriate to note that in the case of the Redeye, for instance, the quantity being discussed for Jordan would be less than one-fiftieth of similar systems in the area. That is to say a shoulder-held, IR, antiaircraft weapon.

In the case of Hawk or higher capability surface-to-air missile systems, it would be on the order of one-fifteenth of those in the area.

If you take the aircraft, let us say the fighter aircraft that they would have to be used against, the Jordanian aircraft represent onethirtieth of those in the area.

So when the Secretary said they were modest I think they are very modest, to use Congressman Rosenthal's phrase. I really think that if anybody looked at the numbers, the classified numbers, any reasonable person would agree that they are very modest.

Mr. WINN. I think you can find a difference of opinion on that. I don't think this room would be full if we were convinced and I don't think we would be having resolutions from Congress sponsored by some members of this subcommittee.

General FISH. Sir, I understand the Congressman's point. But if you had all the numbers that we have from classified sources, and that is why I think it is important that I try to generalize them so as not to get into a classification problem, maybe the viewpoint of the members would change.

Mr. WINN. I was hoping you would give this committee as much information as you can in open session. I don't think there would be objection to an executive session if there was more technical information that this committee should receive.

General FISH. One-fiftieth in the case of Redeye.

One-fifteenth in the case of Hawk and higher, even more capable

systems.

One-thirtieth of the fighters in the area.

Finally, it is a much smaller number than the Jordanians had originally requested. So. I would say it is very modest in every respect and definitely would not upset the balance in the area. In fact it would be a stabilizing influence because right now the Jordanian army is essentially naked as far as air defense goes.

It is important for the Jordanian army's morale to be maintained to have the stability of the government and the stability of that government is important for the stability of the area.

Mr. ATHERTON. Congressman Winn, may I make a comment on your question?

Mr. WINN. Certainly.

Mr. ATHERTON. Obviously it is a very serious question, the whole question of the effect of any arms sale on the military equations, of the military balance, an equation which has been the scene of so many outbreaks of hostilities in the past. We weighed this very carefully on the basis of the best information and judgments available to us. It was a very serious factor in our consideration of this. We came to the conclusion that this does not have a significant impact on the balance presently existing. So it was not something that we dealt with or viewed lightly. We gave it a very serious examination in this connection, as General Fish pointed out.

The package which we agreed upon is substantially smaller than the size package that the Jordanians were originally requesting from

us.

Mr. WINN. I appreciate that information. Members of this committee and in fact all the Members of Congress, most of us want to continue the basic support that we have given to Israel. At the same time the doors of the Arab countries are beginning to open up. We are beginning to talk more to them. They are visting over here. We want to hold, I think, hands with both sides.

But we don't want to do anything from a military standpoint that is going to give a balance to, say, the Arab countries in this case, that is going to make Israel come right back and want some additional sophisticated equipment to offset the balance that this sale to Jordan might bring on. It is like inflation. It is like playing one against the other. Most of us are trying to figure out what we are really faced with. That is why we are asking these questions as far as the technical equipment is concerned.

Most of us at least I speak for myself-don't understand without doing a lot of research exactly what these weapons systems are. At the same time we have to look at it from a political standpoint because that is what this is all about, really, not the military but the political judgments, that you gentlemen have to give us and that we have to make.

I don't have any more questions right now, Mr. Chairman. I think I will in a little bit.

Mr. FASCELL. Fine, Mr. Winn.

General, I am just reading a description here of the general nature and capability of the Hawk. "The Hawk, a homing-all-the-way killer, is a surface-to-air missile designed primarily to engage low-level supersonic targets but capable of intercepting such targets at altitudes ranging from 30 to 11,000 meters."

It is the first missile, I guess, that was credited with an antimissile kill, having killed the Honest John back in 1960.

I gather from your testimony in response to Mr. Winn and Mr. Rosenthal that this system is considered as comparable to other air defense systems in the area for those countries that do not likewise possess the Hawk. Am I correct?

General FISH. Yes, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. What is the general nature and capability, without giving any military secrets away, of the Vulcan system?

General FISH. Yes, sir. The Vulcan system is a 20-millimeter Gatling gun, primarily to use against low attacking aircraft. It is self-propelled and moves with the ground forces.

Mr. FASCELL. Is the Hawk mobile?

General FISH. Sir, it is road-mobile. I would make that distinction. It is not cross-country mobile. This means it depends upon an efficient road net to move.

Mr. FASCELL. You can't put it in a jeep or half-track and move it across country?

General FISH. It takes 50 trucks plus 50 trailers to move one battery.

It would take 11 C-141's-of which of course the Jordanians don't have any to move one battery by airlift.

Mr. FASCELL. How about the Redeye?

General FISH. Redeye is a shoulder-held individual weapon, infrared seeker. It is used against aircraft, and best used against an aircraft after it has attacked you, while it is going away, because it seeks the heat source, which is the tailpipe of the aircraft.

Mr. FASCELL. Is it an antitank weapon?

General FISH. No, sir. I guess some part of it could be. Let me ask my experts. The explosives are too small.

Mr. FASCELL. It won't pierce the armor and there is no stack for it to run up. Is that correct?

Mr. WINN. Would the gentleman yield just for a moment?

Mr. FASCELL. Certainly.

Mr. WINN. I should have asked this question before. Does Jordan want to buy a different or an improved version of the Hawk or is it the same thing that Israel has now?

General FISH. The same thing as Israel has purchased but not yet received.

Mr. WINN. Exactly the same?

General FISH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINN. It is not an improved or updated version?

General FISH. No, sir. In fact the Jordanians and the Israelis would have equal knowledge of the capabilities of the other in that system. Mr. FASCELL. Before I yield to Mr. Buchanan I just want to clarify one thing on the record in my own mind. You said that with respect to the Hawk the amounts going to Jordan were about one fifteenth of comparable systems plus the Hawks in the area.

General FISH. Yes, sir. One-fifteenth. I say it is less than onefifteenth. I am trying to keep it general because of the classification. Mr. FASCELL. I understand that. The reason I am asking the question is because I have got one-fiftieth for the Hawk, one-sixtieth for the Vulcan and one-thirtieth for something else.

General FISH. I can clarify that, sir. It was one-fiftieth for the Redeye or comparable systems in the area, one-fifteenth for the Hawk or better systems and about one-thirtieth of the fighters in the area.

Mr. FASCELL. Using the same kind of general perspective, what about the Israeli capability?

General Fish. Sir, I could work those figures out for you. I don't have them readily available.

Mr. FASCELL. That is OK.

General FISH. I would be happy to provide them for the record. Mr. FASCELL. What about the ratio on the Vulcan?

General FISH. I don't have that because the Vulcan is a 20-millimeter cannon. I do not have a breakout for other countries in the area.

Mr. FASCELL. How about when you have a chance giving us that for the record also so we can balance out this method of perspective?

While you are doing that I think you had better describe for us what is the area you are talking about?