Nato Secret Declassified - Publicly Disclosed - Pdn(2015)0004 - Déclassifié - Mise En Lecture Publique J L

DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE BUREAU D U REPRÉSENTANT REPRÉSENTANT U D BUREAU PR ANENT PERM E P U O R G U D LOM 232/65~^) LOM dationsby to NAAGthe NMA. Enclosure Report.:ofthe fifth meetingof NAAG oyt : AER At: Col.HEFFENER,PANDP Division) (Attn: SACEUR : Copyto Director,Standing Group : MEMORANDUM FOR UJC : Meetingof the NATOArmy (AC/225) Advisory Group : SUBJECT and11 I June, SATI U RIÉ E L'ATLANT DE TRAITÉ DU N IO T A IS N A G R O Your attention isYour invitedto Para 8, whichcontains therecommen T he attachedhe Reportofthe fifth meetingof NAAG, held on9,10 H ATANTI N TLA A TH R O N LC (H PLACE 965 , isforwarded as a matterinformation. of l AEHL E ATf O lSKY PRS XW) TL L 50-20 KLL TEL - ) W (X PARIS - lASSKNY OE LAITRfc DE MARECHAL NATO-SECRET When separatedWhen fromits classified downgraded toNATO RESTRICTED enclosure, thiscoverletter maybe NATO-SECRET FOR THE STANDING GROUPREPRESENTATIVE C RAY SATI N IO T A IS N A G R O TREATY Captain, R.N.N. A.EHBEL, - t t n A- I IE H STANDI P U O R G G IN D N A T S THE F O ICE f t O D R O N E U Q l8 June NATOSECRET /I oto ° (T\ I ■;//IS Control N° - -- REPRESENTATIVE — 1965 ------— — --- v v ^ '■ DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE EN C wererepresented,summary A reportexcept Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal. . Item-II ExchangeofInformation on ABCArmies' Operational Concept: 2. on thismeetingfollows. . AGmto Jn I June H - NAAGmet on9 1. LOSURE TOLOM £. SGREP stated SGREP that, sinceSTAND 6697 had beenissued, £.SGN had taken 6697. “ £. . Chairman thenasked ifSGREPany new developmentsd.hadfollowed STAND f . SHAPE confirmed, SHAPE stressingthat .they didf intendnot toset upa US, on behalfofthe countries,ABC expectedb.the Annexes to beavail a. Chairmanintroduced the discussion summarisingby the decisions taken F useful to combine,it butis worth trying. AGsilhlsntoa iw. Hewonderedif NAAGstill SHAPE was notholdsthe national views. existbetween thetwo Concepts Spring inHowever, viewitsof fundamental importance, thestudyshould not rightplace totryto reconcile ABC andFINABEL Concepts. Working Theyalso askedParty to withwhat national representatives. nofurther action.X SHAPE, on theother hand,initiated had study a assuch, wouldbeready to todohelp SHAPE aconcept. extent would inNAAG be positiona tohelpin SHAPE draftingsuch regardingthe possibility ofdrawing uptacticala conceptof limited structureand thereforewasable to recommend a Command'sview, whereas In replytothe question raisedby theChairman as towhatthe Group, behurried up. A existsDraft for the twofirst Parts; 3 Partsand4 hadbeenset to upstudy the basic militaryrequirements forthe Army scope, butfinal noconclusions had been drawn untilnow. ableforformal release inearly I theapproval ofthe Chiefs ofStaff isand expected to issuedbe by FINABEL The concept arestillwill then requireunder preparation. and.to tryto definecommon points between andABC FINABEL concepts. on thestatusof the Annexesto their (AC/225-D/46). study invited Hethe countriesABC attoinform thelast the meeting.Group (iii)Turkish suggestedRep that an analyticalstudy by maySTCprove (ii)The Repconsidered UK asalmost certain thatdivergences will TheUSRepconsidered that SHAPE'S(i)advantage wasto bea Command D on behalfof informed FINABEL,that a SpecialWorking Group HD, . 1966 32/65 6 / 2 23 eeecs (a)AC/ References: , aboutthesame time as the ABCConcept. Report onReport the Fifth Meeting held by theby NATO Army Advisory Group (AC/225. NATO-SECRET NATO-SECRET (b) 965 , in line with Agenda ref (a). All countries All, inline with (a). Agendaref 225 : they willbeextremely difficult -A/ 5 966 (Revised . : NATO SECRET DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE J L. US feltJL.that US ABC and FINABEL conceptsprovewould fundamentally h . GeneralFI atfrcmaig thedifferent forwait doctrines, comparing untilthey areissued For allFor these reasons, itis extremely difficultto establish GeneralCOBURN, informedSHAPE, NAAGbriefly of the discussions e impossiblebe for SHAPE toestablish adoctrine without knowing stressed He which ittookthatplace wouldat DPC/DPWG meetings. theOn other hand isSACEURprimarily concerned withpractical dealatthe outset with anuclear attack. whereasaccording tothe latter,the forcesshould beready to thefirstprovides for deployment, positioningdifferent: and atthelogical place astheconcept, in first instance, must be ABC/FINABEL studiesarefinalised. moredelayed until 196^ a doctrineon standard use ofground forces. theproblemis also different in eachregion ofACE. which forces, in termsof quality andquantity, would beavailable; equipmentof forces toinitiallymeet aconventional attack solutionhappy for SHAPE toarrive atfinal conclusions before the acceptabletoSACEUR. moreofa formal ratherthan ofa substantial nature. waituntil ABC/FINABEL studiesarepublished in order to avoid problemsandtherefore may havehisownopinion. reflectthe viewpoints of"performers". the however,thisshould notprevent SHAPEstartingfrom the study. thereforeitwould bethan itswiser to early availability; toobroad divergencesbetweenthe latter the and concept;SHAPE progressrapidlyin this field wondered beifit ,was wise to synthétiséwhen they arestill in the drafting stage. felt, however, that SACEUR1sstudy mayprove useful itas will between ABCand conceptsFINABEL which, theyexpected, would be considered thatthe thoroughness ofthe studyis important more that shouldNAAG inact capacity of consultant. should decidewhen tostart studyhis asthebasic documents nterfnlfr: in hisview, they would in be easier theirto final form: In their opinion,shouldNAAG try toreconcile differences establish rapidly Theyand by ownhis meansan agreed concept. commonto the twostudies. issued; then,NAAGcould endeavour to drawa concept onpoints v Ntelnswso h aeoiina K itwould Netherlandsnot bea wasof the same opinion (v) asUK: i) Canadaexpressed the viewthat (ix) SGN had placedthe task (viii)Fran (Paraconsidered4, They STAND5697) arestillnot available. FRGapproved instructionsthe (vii)given by toSGN SACEUR who (iv)supportedNorway the position.US (vi) Italysuggested to waituntil the ABC/FINABEL Conceptsare x The Belgian opinion wasveryclose tothe French: they (x) S E (IS) BER wasconcerned that theproblem would beonce c escepticalwas asto the possibility for SACEURto NATO-SECRET NATO-SECRET A lthoughadmitting the difficulty to NATO SECRET --2 DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE . ItemII 3. . NAAG: k. , AHMWGon Telecommunications (AC/220) Equipment a, AC/225should decideonthe nextcourse ofaction However, GeneralCOBURN str studiesand to maketheir conclusions available. on TelecommunicationsEquipment, AC/220". both in their militaryand economic nationalaspects,forces, representativesof andABC FINABEL countriesandof SHAPE ingthis undertaking in reportstothe Ad Hoc Mixed Working Group reviewabout I March plansforcooperative developnent willbeprepared. technicalparameters can preparedbe for nationalauthority in t is ina good positionto recognise theproblems facing the sitting togetherand discussingthese problems because SHAPE s i eea n iie a. Accordi inuse Generaland Limited War. Requirementand Technical Solutionshould sought be forthe written statement: AHMWG achieve : tacticaltrunkcommunications system forthe ABCAArmies for ofABCA haveagreedinprinciple thata Common Operational whateverway seemmay mostconvenient toall concerned. agreedthat projecta team willbe established forthwith to encounteredby AC/220were duetothe lack of acommon concept. ti 1 Asaresult ofjoint studies over the past"1. year, members ( (2)Chair (1) Chairmanpointed out that, oncemore, some ofthe difficulties . Itis envisioned that agreed operationalcharacteristics 2.and 3- is It also planned that NATObeapprised ofprogress regard 3 o )US, on behalf of ABC Countries, submittedthe following nalconcept, tokeepintouch with ABC/FINABEL countriesin e b ocrety identification ofcommon(b) technicalConcurrently (a) Common Operational Requirements fora digitally Invited- toSGN,request SACEUR,v;hcn establishinga rms"realities".of -agreed, thatit iswhen in possession ofthe studies, -invited andABC FINABEL countriestopursue their I development. wouldpermit initiationthe ofcooperative solutionsagreeable tothecountries andthat laterthan channelaccess thereto thatcould befielded not (Corps/Division)system together withsingle switched, secure, tactical trunk communications .ofExchangeInformation on theActivities ofthe following m an AC/220commented on AC/ NATO-SECRET NATO-SECRE 1977 966 Assoon as possible thereafter, .detailed . on - 3 - NATO SECRET NATO --3 gly supportedthe proposal to have 225 -D/ n l, itgly,has been 9 O. T h .opera A... .A DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE d . Group of Group Expertson (AC/l9^)InfraFar Red .d AHMWGon .c b . AHMWGon (AC/l77)Land MineWarfare Group. that imagethatintensification wasonly effective in dayli es ol e nrae yte s o sc eie. They devices. such of use the by increased be would ness ol e rtfl o xhne f nomto nti subject. this on information of exchange for grateful be would I in undertaken be would kept informedkept oftheir programme ofworkin case ofreorgani odtos ` conditions. AC eodgnrto eie ad nomdta atcl tests tactical that informed and devices generation second layingto AC question ofthe transfer ofresponsibility for remotemine- established, tothe personnelqualified towork on mines. practicablebe in viewof the factthat AC mines. minelaying/detonation in conjunction with aircrafttoa Group digitalsystems aswell componentas problems forthe post sation ofthis Group. madeby AC/220. the thepossibility oftransferring the (2)NAAGnoted with satisfaction theactivities of AC/194. concernedwith air defensein view ofthe heavy workloadof concluded He byasking NAAGguidance concept.with respect to period (1)Chairman AC/194introduced AC/ ingthat the firstnecessity for hisGroup was tofindcommona (4)tookNAAG noteof the satisfactory progress made by AC (3) US considered that attention should be concentrated on concentrated be should attention that considered (3) US (vii), after United States. (2)Netherlandsasked that their country added beat Para 4.{b) (1) ( (2)Thereawasgeneral consensus thatthissolution wouldnot (4)Chairman indicatedAC/220 that intended hisGroup toamend (1)Chairman introduced AC/177 (AC/ hisReport ( 3 5 /177 )NAAG ) NAAGnoted the statements madeand the excellent progress TOR TOR Chairman, and ofthe natureof theprimary requirementforsuch . ofto allowW.G.2it to undertake thestudy of existing : N invited-the Armaments Committee considerto the invited- AC/l77toforward their final concept, once -notedthe progress made by AC/177 andasked tobe ight(AC/ Vision /189 AC if appropriate. /185 NATO - SECRET NATO - SECRET NMA, commented on on commented 966 forratification. 185 NATOSECRET --4 to see how much combat effective combat much how see to ) 225 A C/ r -D esponsibilityfor remote 225 /88 -D and pointed out /189 /76 includedidnot 225 -D/ • •*/5♦ 91 g ) indicat ht

/185 /185

-1975 -1975 DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE 5 . ItemIV. Repliesto Questions Raised theby Military Authorities 4. Item DiscussionsV.on ofStudies Particular Interest to NATO . £. France informed France thatthey had recently decidedto develop a £. . NAAGnoted thestatement of SGREPthat the results ofthe studies d. GeneralFISHER extremelywas concerned that, since oneyear, no b. a . Use of Use Helicopters .a In replytoa question by Chairman toaswhether new developments a. SHAPE confirmedSHAPE indicatedand that bothstudies werestill under occurredhad since thelast meeting with respecttoan electronic undertaken by an MAS way andthat nofurther action, therefore, couldtaken. be conducting now astudy with a view to fillthegaps in the unexpressed need also existed. The activities The ofthe unexpressed Working needalso existed. use, althoughit should bethe basis forfuture work. Asthe German Army alreadywasprocuring helicoptersforthe (STANDmethods Partyshould allow toNMAnote this factand any produced NBMR 1968-80 andto reportfurther atthe next.-meeting of NAAG. theNMA, hewondered whatwas wrong with theprocedure. incriminating Withoutthis wasan urgent important and problem. overallsystemcovered by STANAG with sophisticatedmore means. necessary. equipmentwas alreadyin existence andthat, therefore, an categoriesofpayload capacity specified at Annex II,AC/225-D/73* -sendthe-Report to asSGN a basis fora NBMR. litieswere nowopen to NAAG couldbetaken invitedand the NMAto hasten actionon thispoint portable, morelightandcompact. secondgeneration of ARABELLEtransponder, vehiclemounted but progressbeenhad madealthough several countries recognisedhad statement (STANDofa NBMR ground-to-groundIFFsystem, couldcorrespond toexisting types ofequipment. andthe Armaments Committee - instruct- the Working Partyto undertake more detailedstudies invitationto returnit t<5 AC instructed initiate toMAS a STANAG to cover current meansand (2) Germanyconsidered that a NBMRshould notbelimited to the (3)stressedUSthat it generallywas agreed thatthis type of ( (4)NAAG: 1 )introduced France AC/225-D/73, pointing out that twopossibi period, an NBMR would be, in anycase, toolate for their -agreed toforward AC/225-D/73"to thewith NMA an -agreed toforward D/73"to AC/240 Group. 5827 NATO - SECRET NATO - SECRET )invited and SACEU d STCwerebeing awaited before action 5826 NATO SECRET -5- S /225 GREPrecalled that the SGN had . At SACEUR'srequest, wasSTC ). for further examination if R to submit to aproposed ,/6. DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE . Tactical ConceptofIn £. . Data Transmission andProcessing for (AC/ Land Force b. with with theconceptUS but in that, practice, limitationsofall MAULER. bodywill have compromise. to kindsimposewill themselves. differentconcepts tocomecloser. 33NBMR 34.and shouldNAAGinsist that a definition ofrequirements was It isIttherefore probable that,when prototypes willcombe that, fromtheoretical a pointof view, onecould but agree resultsofthestudies conducted atpresent enablemay the wouldbe20T, the main armament (approx)a 20mm cannon, and bepossible for to NAAGrecommend the creation ofsomesort of couldSGN beexpected. thatthecrew, when dismounted, wouldstill dispose ofthe pared, they willbe more similar than expected, becauseevery suggestedtoleave theproblem with thisGroup, hopingthat the Infantryrequirements byonly one typeof vehicle andthey ever, theyconsider thatit will impossible be tomeet all the solvedas amatter of urgency. essential in first place. subjecthad beenaroused alreadywas substantiala result. been rejectedbythe ofCEC the whichSGN submittedhad an andthat the suggestion forthe establishment of AMEDAhad notcompetent tocomply withthe requestaddressed it.to intendtherefore todevelop equipments in accordance with progress inmade this matter. someform of compatibility and wonderedwhetherit would not stressed They the importanceurgent this inaction.of havin immediate No decision on thealternativepartof proposal. it is attached at Annex A. They indicated They thatit isthe weightattached at Annex A. co-ordinating body within EMCCC. statingthat his Group presentlywas dormant, and,inany case, (4)felt FranceThisproposal US met generalwith agreement. (2)Germany in was How general agreement with concept.US (paras (3) After Chairman AC/l74 elaboratedhad on AC/ (5)NAAG (3) emphasised UK the unsatisfactory situation resultingfrom (1) USmadeapresentation on theirconcept of "M.I.F.V"a : (4)consideredUS that the factthat interest NMA'sin this (2)saidSGREPthat the EMCCCReport hadbeen submitted to SGN (1)Secretaryof AC 55 : -reiterated theirposition as shownin AC/225-R/4 -expressed their dissatisfactionatthe lack of - 70 ) andearnestly requested thatthis problem be NATO - SECRE NATO-SECRET /238 f introduced AC/225-D/82andconcluded by antry Fighting Vehicles. T 225 NATO NATO SECRET -D/ 238 8 I,US ) g

DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE g. Individual Weapon Replacement Weapon Individual g. £. Establishment of a NATO Combat Development Experimentation Centre Experimentation Development Combat a NATO of Establishment £. fF Forward Area Air Defense Air Area Forward fF d. egu n aaacniee htNA hudcnie itself confine should NAAG that considered Canada and Belgium but, as there was no urgency, considered that that considered urgency, no was there as but, Groupas hadbeen donefor helicopters. US made a presentation, the text of which is attached at Annex C, Annex at attached is which of text the presentation, a made US by the lackof an agreed tactical concept. Nationsand notbythe SGN. is civ is task. its achieve first agreed, generally countries Other functions. itsAdvisory to established by some AHMWG for their own purpose. own their for AHMWG by some established NAAGnoted AC/225-D/77 withoutcomments. d l e i F uhacnet tkn datg fpril ocps already concepts partial of advantage taking concept, a such and pursueTurkey tothe project on abilateral basis. projecton abilateral basis. note A circulatedwas needs andtoreconsidered be by SGN. confusedhad matter The technical developmentsandtesting. fore, ifthe matter needstobereconsidered, itisthe by establishment There for thesame reasons asstated by SHAPE. thefactthat (except all nations one) hadopposed the Centre basedon the reasonsstated by SHAPE, in who,their opinion, difficultposition in thisrespect since thesolution they may hisviewson thissubject, presentation. taking noteofthe comments made and, in particular, ofthe US proposewould notnecessarily commit nations. (3)Chairman ifwondered NAAGwould beready to setupa Working isattached at Annex B. (2) (1)Chairman deplored that, oncemore, progress had been stopped (5) NAAGnoted thecomments madeand the intention of Germany (4)Germanystated that they would probablycarry on withthe (3)stressedSGREP that the position SGN hadbeen dictatedby (2)Turkey wasextremely disappointedthat the rejection was (1)informedSGREP the Groupofcontent of STAND (5) In replytoa suggestion US that SACEUR maywish to express (6)invitedNAAG AC/174Groupto continue their deliberations, eea IHRsgetdta AG hudedaort establish to endeavour should NAAG that suggested FISHER General Electrical Power Sources on the Battlefield. the on Sources Power Electrical NATO - SECRET NATO - SECRET SHAPE SHAPE MATO SECRET 7 -- saidthat they in were a AC/239 JOOO. should should '

DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE . Item VIII.Recommendations toNMA 8. . Item VI.Exchangeof Information on bi, tri, andmultilateral 6. . Item VII.ExchangeofInformation on PossibleApplication of New 7. . Hovercraftand ground/air reconnaissance vehicles a. . New inTechniquesthe Fieldof Seekersfor Guided £.Missiles Ducted Fans .b The recommendationsThe byto NAAGthe areNMAcontained in h S presentationTheUS is attached at Annex E. S informedUSthat they were searching new approachestothe Paras2.(k), 4.(d), 5-(a)(^) and 5-(b)(5) above. Techniques Francemadeapresentation followingthe outline containedin andoflaser illuminators. exploringthe possibilities ofoptical contrast seekers AC/ NAAGnoted AC/ Agreements NNAG. Advisory toGroupsparticipate in the activities of SWG/4of Group had decided inviteto observers ofthe Armyand Air Force hovercraftandcommented on AC/ problem theyare of guiding missilesoncethey are launched: applicationsby nextmeeting. aredeveloping studies inthis field. toco-ordinate informationthe receivedfrom countries which on behalfof NAAG. thewishof that NAAGthe of TOR SWG/4bebroadened so that ofin NAAG the activities of SWG/4 and informto hisGroupof sofar, shownhad interest no in thematter. consider They that thereis agreat futureat forAnnex D. thisGroup would beofinter-service an nature. (4)invited NAAG AC ( (1) UKmadepresentationa illustrated films:by it isattached (4)NAAG: (2)Secretary, NATO Naval Advisory informed Group NAAGthat his 3 ). GeneralindicatedFISHER that NATOAir ForceAdvisory Group, 225 -D/ 89 -agreed thatthe should UK send an observerto SWG/4 invited-its membersto seekinstructions for the invited- the Secretaryof NNAGto noteinterestthe . It is Itconsidered that ducted fans findmay various 225 1970 -D NATO - SECRET NATO-SECRET /86 /239 . without comments. tocontinue its exploratory work and - 8 - NATO SECRET NATO --8 225 -D/ 87 . . . ./9. DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE . Item 3X.Proposalstothe Armament 9. 1 Item XI.Other Business 11. Item ActionX. taken theby NMAandthe ArmamentsCommittee 10. . (l)Chairman, then, wenton to if,ask aftertheir fifth b. a. Upon invitation, Upon Dr.MacLucasreported on theactivities of a. Karman studyKarman commentsNo ofparticular interest. For instance,For Air andForce NavalGroups haveset up Working suggestedHe to thinkover whathas beenachieved sofar and to tookNAAG note of AC/225-D/84. RC inDRDC particular with respectto the up-dating of the von Partiesor Sub-Groupstostudyspecific problems. with thesame interpreted TOR,had differentlytheir mission wouldgive suggestions oradvice on compromise solutions to meeting, thetime had not comefor toNAAG havea critical look effortsshould result fromincreased an efficiency and notfrom watchfuleye on AHMWG. ina similar way to and NNAG "operational" moreNAFAG. discu thistends toprove that the are TOR sufficiently flexible. problems. He therefore He supported the proposal.US problems. Itwould interestingbe an experience totryto set up a augmentationof personnel. lookto at the tosee TOR whether the shouldGroup not become apart of ourtime to closed, off-recordsessions, where suggested investigateto ifitwould notbe reasonable togive thereforethemselves He as bound by national guidances. exchangeofviews on military matterswastheformal nature In hisview, the valueof the isGroup threefold. recommendationsshould notbe madeto the NMA. rightdirection, ifthe machinery is satisfactory ifand attheir in work order to ascertainif they are goingin the practicalWorking Group, notwith decision power,butwhich personnelcarriers, weresometimes inkept abeyance for years. problemssuch infantry as weapons, of use helicopters, armoured sidered thatthe most valuable function of NAAGwasto keep a personalalso Heproposed views on problems couldbe exchanged. ofthe discussions in which mostof the delegates consider -and, last butleast, not theregular meetingsgivethe - itallows foratremendous exchangeinformation of it-is the focusof various AHMWG (6)GeneralFISCHER stressed that the three Advisory Groups, ( (4) FRGwas ofthe opinion that improvements in cooperative (3)con inwas HeUK general agreement withthis statement. (2)USRep wasof theopinion that what had hamperedfruitful 5 opportunityof getting to know eachother better. )French Repstricken was bythe factthat small tactical s itsthe at nextmeeting. a nd tothereview ofthe procedure. NBMR NATO .../ - SECRET NATO^ SECRET s Committee NATO SECRET 10 ... :

DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE TURKISH DELEGATION TURKISH eurmn (e pr . h ntdSae hs s elaborate as has States United ). The c 3 para (see Requirement e ul, u pooe pras s a as perhaps proposed but built, yet References : (a) MCM-1O-65, dated 11 January 1965, January 11 dated MCM-1O-65, (a) : References do they consider the combat effectiveness of equipment not equipment of effectiveness combat the consider they do proposal. the of rejection final before upon, Expeffpie sse feprmna cnes s n cuty in country any as centers experimental of system a the U.S. considers a Combat Development Command for the Array the for Command Development Combat a considers U.S. the Ar dacdb HP i aarp o C-O6 (11/1/1965). MCM-1O-65 of 8 paragraph in SHAPE by advanced ye qimn. nnihr ae o hyeaie equipment examine they do case neither In equipment. type nafl tcia cnet se aa3 o C-O6) nor MCM-1O-65). of 3b para (see context tactical full a in proto of test engineering in or systems, raent weapon new of etEprmnainCne ( DC bcue f h reasons the of because CDEC) (N Center Develop Combat NATO a Experimentation ment establish to proposal the support to to m N y Advisory Group y Advisory a TO n tatio . (b) AC/225 - D/36, dated 30 April 1964, April 30 dated -D/36, AC/225 (b) . Existing experimental centers engage in develop- in engage centers experimental Existing TN OO 1//95) tts htSN is unable SGN that ) (18/5/1965 states 7OOO STAND Establishment of a NATO aNATO of Establishment Thes oe yte uks eeain toNATO Delegation Turkish the by Note n

Center e esn sol e xmnd n commenced and examined be should reasons N t te 3 N A t. K C ai, 8t Paris, NATO NATO ombat Development ombat NATO - CONFIDENTIAL - NATO Basic Military Basic h Jn, 1965 June,

s t NATO,

yet

DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - PDN(2015)0004 - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE visited the U.S. Army's combat Development Development combat Army's the U.S. visited have nations NATO the of many from missions that also noted AHMW'G’s for NBMR;s nor would they investigate joint produc joint investigate they AHMW'G’swould nor NBMR;s for ol o spl tcncleprs oNT cmite, e.g. committees, toNATO experts technical supply not would oh f h concept. theof sophy philo theunderlying of aware arewell and California, Ord, NCDE An LaSpezia, at direction. organization for essential field experiments. It should be should It experiments. field essential for organization and in fact may poi may infact and study of weapo study h cpblte o xeietl centers experimental of* capabilities the production. and D and R complement to experiments ytmbfr i i bit a adyhr nbd' industries anybody's harm canhardly is built it before system ntuetto sdb DC s nfc aueu duc to adjunct useful a fact in is a CDEC by used instrumentation tion possibilities. In any event, studying a new weapon new a studying anyevent, In possibilities. tion to services other the for formations similar and In fact, it may be read as supporting combat development combat supporting as read maybe it fact,In il comple tial aient, . The logical content of sub-paragraph 8c, sub-paragraph of is contentobscure. logical The . AO uprsetbihet fr h analytical the for establishments supports NATO Under the argument of sub-paragraph 8d, nations sub-paragraph of argument the Under nrgr t sbprgah8e. h tp of type the 8.e.. sub-paragraph to regard In n systems - The STC at The Hague and theSA and TheHague at -TheSTC systems n t nepnie n ulctn luxury, duplicating and an expensive ot n t them in a more profitable and fruitful and profitable moreina them t C could be thought of as a parallel a as of thought be could - 2 ~ Brig. Gen, Fuat Ulug Fuat Gen, Brig. ebr f theNAAG of Member TAF retd.) (T.A.F. C enter at Fort enter b anessen e