Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Flagon A interceptor.

Special programs related to their strategic systems, and improvements that they are introducing into their over-all missile capability.

RUSSIAN ASW EMPHASIS

And new and significant emphasis on ASW.

For instance, they have brought into the Mediterranean and into the Atlantic now the two ASW helicopter ships, the Moskva and Leningrad.

In addition, they are conducting tests with various types of sonobuoys, aircraft, and surface ships.

Senator ELLENDER. How do those carriers compare with ours? Admiral MOORER. These are not carriers as we know them. These are simply helicopter carriers that are use primarily for antisubmarine warfare although they could also be used for amphibious warfare if they wanted to convert them to that purpose.

Senator ELLENDER. What period of time are you talking about? When did we begin to see this develop?

Admiral MOORER. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the Soviets initiated these developments following the Cuban crisis when they set out to build up their forces. Actually, so far as the Navy is concerned, they began the initial ships following the Suez incident in the 1950's. But they seemed to accelerate their research and development following the Cuban crisis.

RUSSIAN SUPERIORITY VIS-A-VIS UNITED STATES: ABM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

Senator ELLENDER. Did I understand you to say in some respects they were ahead of us in these fields?

Admiral MOORER. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Will you indicate which?

Admiral MOORER. You asked me earlier whether or not they had surveyed as much ocean as we had. I said I thought in some cases more than we had. It is difficult to point specifically where they are ahead of us. Certainly they have their ABM system developed somewhat ahead of us.

Senator ELLENDER. Where?

Admiral MOORER. Positioned primarily around Moscow, sir.

Moscow ABM DEPLOYMENT

Senator ELLENDER. Are you familiar with their Moscow ABM deployment?

Admiral MOORER. Yes, sir; we have a good idea what they have done there.

Senator ELLENDER. Do you know how many sites they originally planned to have?

Admiral MOORER. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. How many?

Admiral MOORER. I will check that but I think it is 64. But I would like to check that for the record.

(The information follows:)

There are four complexes in the Moscow ABM system. [Deleted] the systems probably will have a total of 64 launchers, a substantial cutback from the 8 complexes and 128 launchers which we believe were originally planned for the ABM-1.

Senator ELLENDER. I think the record shows that they actually

deployed only one-half of what they originally planned.

Admiral MOORER. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. The question is, Why did they cut it in half? Admiral MOORER. It could have been due to the fact that they were having technical difficulties and consequently wanted to start all over again. [Deleted]

Senator ELLENDER. Why do you place importance on the construction of the ABM?

Admiral MOORER. Mr. Chairman, it takes a long time to produce any weapons system. We are simply talking about the stages that they have reached in their overall development, effort. It takes many, many years. Any effort that is taken in this direction serves to improve the probability of later success.

U.S. CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS

Admiral MOORER. I want to make the point with this chart of the world that the United States is an island with large coastlines facing both oceans. In any kind of major combat operation in which we might find ourselves, the U.S. Navy would be operating in both oceans if the adversary happened to be the Soviets because they have a very sizable Pacific fleet as well as a fleet in this side of the world.

Secondly, I would like to point out that any major combat operation conducted by the United States overseas requires the protection of the lines of communication from the United States to the point of combat, wherever it happens to be.

Thirdly, I would like to emphasize that not only must we be prepared to defend against submarine attacks on these sea lines of communications but also we must be able to maintain air superiority over the oceans, as well.

Senator ELLENDER. That is the contingency you have in mind, I presume, to support the entire free world against Russia, because that is what we are doing now.

Admiral MOORER. No, sir; that is not what I have in mind, sir.
Senator ELLENDER. What is it you have in mind?

Admiral MOORER. Our policy calls for essentially a forward strategy rather than a Fortress America. I am simply making the point again that in order to operate any place outside the United States it is necessary to have control of the oceans between the United States and wherever the President chooses to have the forces operate.

Senator ELLENDER. Following through on what you say, I presume we would have to have control not only of the Atlantic and Pacific but also the Indian Ocean. They are there also, aren't they?

Admiral MOORER. They are there, also. That point would only hold if we became involved somewhere in the Indian Ocean which I don't see as likely at the moment.

Senator ELLENDER. You don't? I hope you are right.

Admiral MOORER. The next slide, please.

(A copy of the slide referred to in the text is illustrated below :)

[graphic][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed]

SSBN CON VERSIONS

Admiral MOORER. Finally, addressing our own budget, I would just like to highlight the key items that we have in this budget.

First, from a procurement point of view and, secondly from a development point of view.

We have already discussed the SSBN conversions which are in this program and which extend out to [deleted] wherein we plan to convert 31 of the 41 submarines to the Poseidon, leaving 10 as Polaris types.

CVAN70 LEADTIME ITEMS: CARRIER AIRCRAFT

Going down the other procurement items, we have $152 million in this budget for long leadtime items for the CVAN70.

Senator YOUNG. What is that?

Admiral MOORER. That is the third Nimitz carrier.

Senator ELLENDER. We will ask you about that a little later.
Admiral MOORER. The next line shows the carrier aircraft that are
in this budget. Next we have the new nuclear frigate.
Senator ELLENDER. Those are all carrier aircraft?

Admiral MOORER. These are aircraft under procurement that will operate on all of the Forrestal class carriers, not specifically the Nimitz type.

DLGN AND DLG CONVERSIONS

Next we show the DLGN and then the DLG conversions to improve their AAW capability. Next is the LHA which is an amphibious ship under construction and has a capability of operating helos as well as boats. Then the A-4M and the Harrier which are Marine aircraft General Chapman will address later. Under ASW we have the SSN688

CARRIER AIRCRAFT: NONSUPERSONIC

Senator SYMINGTON. Before leaving the airplanes, could I ask one question?

Senator ELLENDER. Surely.

Senator SYMINGTON. How many of those airplanes are in the supersonic range?

Admiral MOORER. None of these aircraft are supersonic, Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Admiral MOORER. As you know, we have been operating the A-6 for some time. The EA-6B and E-2C are electronic warfare and early warning aircraft. The A-6E and A-7E are attack aircraft.

Senator SYMINGTON. Regardless of conviction on the ability to handle any problem against modern sea-to-sea, air-to-sea, and land-tosea missilry, doesn't it disturb you some that none of these airplanes are supersonic?

Admiral MOORER. I think here you have to recognize that the EA-6B and E-2C are retained in the rear area and consequently you would not project them ahead into a heavy threat area. The A-6E and A-7E aircraft are effective assuming, of course, that you have adequate supersonic fighters with them which we intend to provide.

Senator SYMINGTON. But that is many years in the future.
Admiral MOORER. We have supersonic aircraft-the F-4.
Senator SYMINGTON. You said "intend to provide."

Admiral MOORER. By that, I mean when we conduct a tactical oper

ation we would have them accompany the attack aircraft.

Senator SYMINGTON. Are you saying the attack aircraft, the A-6 and A-7, cannot function in a conventional war without support of other fighter aircraft?

Admiral MOORER. I am saying in any kind of combat operation it is necessary to gain air superiority.

Senator SYMINGTON. I understand.

Admiral MOORER. Consequently, the method by which one conducts an attack would be determined, to a large degree, by the opposition you would expect. The first step is always to achieve air superiority and then go ahead with the attacks.

INADEQUATE CONVENTIONAL MILITARY FORCE TO COMBAT REAL ENEMY

Senator SYMINGTON. As you know, for many years I have felt that we are designing an Army, Navy and Air Force in order to combat if necessary, countries like Santo Domingo and South Vietnam, Korea perhaps, but not the type and character of conventional military force we would need in order to combat what, to the best of my knowledge, is the real enemy.

At the same time, the Soviets are not interested in designing a conventional Military Establishment to fight such limited peripheral wars; they are designing and building a great conventional force, land, sea and air, to be able to be successful against the United States.

Let me ask one more question.

DELAYED MODERNIZATION OF FIGHTER-TYPE AIRCRAFT

If instead of being forced to go along with the F-111B, the Navy had been allowed to develop, starting in 1961, their own concept of what they should have on a carrier, we would not have to wait this long for a more modern aircraft like the F-14, would we?

Admiral MOORER. As you are well aware, Senator Symington, the F-111 program seriously delayed our modernization of Navy fightertype aircraft.

Senator SYMINGTON. I recognize the fact the Congress is the one which forced the Navy to cancel the F-111B program. It was a sound and solid decision.

HARRIER AIRCRAFT: COST

Senator YOUNG. What type of plane is the Harrier and what are the costs? I understand the costs are going up sharply.

General CHAPMAN. The Harrier is a light attack aircraft that has a vertical takeoff and landing capability, Senator. It is being produced by the British corporation, Hawker-Sidley.

The Congress approved 12 for us in fiscal year 1970. We are requesting 18 more in 1971. Senator YOUNG. How long have they been in operation?

« ÎnapoiContinuă »