PROJECT FORECAST...THE YF-12A INTERCEPTOR WEAPON S Y S T E M . J O I N T EXERCISE GOLD FIRE I M A RC H -A PR IL 1965 STATES AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY REVIEW AIR UNIVERSITY R eview THE PROFESSIONAl JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE F orecast............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Gen. Bemard A. Sehriever, usaf T he YF-12A Interceptor Wea po n Syst em........................................................................................ 13 Col. Allen K. McDonald, usaf Do W e Waxt a Super sonic Transport or an $89 Trip to Eur ope? ................................... 18 Lt. Gen. William H. Tnnner, usaf (Ret) E xer cise Gold Fir e I ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Maj. Robert G. Sparkman, usaf Amer ic a n Spa c e Policy: C iv il ia n /M il it a r y Dic h o t o my................................................................45 Dr. Robert H. Puckett Viet Nam: T he Diffic u l t Yea r s...............................................................................................................51 Lt. Col. Donald F. Martin, usaf The Co mma xder and His Information Officer ..................................................................................59 Maj. William Bender, Jr., usafr The Bio l o c ic a l Basis of Arms Control..............................................................................................64 Capt. Frank H. Dowell. usaf Militarv Affairs Abroad The Deba t e Bet ween Khrushchev and His M arshals............................................................ 68 Dr. Kenneth R. Whiting Air Force Review A B R E S ................................................................................................................................................80 Brig. Gen. Harry J. Sands, Jr., usaf Air Operations in Viet Nam Ammunit io n Drop.................................................................................................................................84 In Mv Opinion Are We Liv in g a Fic t io n ? ..................................................................................................................... 87 Col. J. Tod Meserow. usaf E ffic ien c y or Effec t iveness—L et ’s Have B oth.........................................................................89 Lt. Col. James T. Hargrove, usaf Books and Ideas Japanese War His t o r y....................................................................................................................90 Susumu Nishiura The Contributors.............................................................................................................................................94 the cover Address manuscripts to the Editor. Air Uni- Known during its developmental phase cenity Review, Aerospace Studies Institute, as the A -ll, the YF-12A , shown here Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. Printed by the in majestic ascent. has become widely Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Subscriptions are sold by the Air Uni- renowned for its unique performance. versity Book Department. Maxwell Air Force Colonel Allen K. McDonald is con- Base, Ala.: yearly $4.50, back issues 75 cerned with both its development cents. USAF nECORiu.se pu bl ic a t io s 50-2. and capabilities in his artiele, "The YF-12A Interceptor Weapon System." Vol. XV I No. 3 March-Apr il 1965 FORECAST Gener a l Ber na r d A. Sc hr iever Science and technology are having increasing infhiencc on the defense pusture of tuitions. The pace of technological change affects in a major way the near and long term complexion and strategic planning activities of the Air Force. It is quite evident that there is an urgent need for a comprehensive study and analysis of the Air Force structure projected into the 1965-1975 time period. HIS STATEMENT by the Chief of of technological possibilities. Periodically since Staff, General Curtis E. LeMay, in then the Air Force has called on scientists and T Nlarch 1963, set in motion an Air Force engineers for concentrated studies of the State tudy of major proportions which carne to be of the art and the exploration of what lay ahead :no\vn as Project fo r ec ast . Even before the through technological progress. iur Force became a separate Service almost 20 Project fo r ec ast is the latest in this series ears ago, it had established a tradition of tak- of long-range technical planning studies, which ng stock of its current capabilities and looking began with the monumental work of a group o its future potential through the forecasting headed by the late Dr. Theodore von Kármán, , . '? d t l . I Chart 1. Project FORECAST approach to long-range technical planning published in 1945 under the title, Toward New Marine Corps, and ten other Federal agencies, Horizons. Since then there have been other participated in fo r ec a st . Likewise twenty-six studies. In the early 1950’s there vvere the universities and colleges furnished members studies of nuclear weapon capabilities and bal- from their faculties and research staffs. Seventy listic missiles led by the late Dr. John von U.S. corporations and ten nonprofit organiza­ Neumann and in 1957-58 the Woods Hole tions also provided panei memberships and studies jointly sponsored by the Air Research consultant Services. and Development Command and the National Synthesizing the collected knowledge o Academy of Sciences. the several hundred military specialists, their civilian associates in the Government, and thei the nature of the project counterparts from the national scientific ant technical community was in itself a task a; In spite of the magnitude of these past enormous proportions. The systematic àp- efforts, Project fo r ec a st was the most compre- proach that was used is shown in Chart 1. hensive exploration of our national position in Science and technology yet conducted by the the important inputs military Services. Top technical people in many fields explored the thinking and vvork of liter- There were three primary inputs to the ally thousands of U.S. scientists and engineers project, shown on the chart as Technological as well as the work of foreign specialists. Forty Possibilities, Policy and Military Considera- Government activities, including twenty-seven tions, and the Threat. Air Force organizations, the Army, Navy, A prime determinant of the role the Air FORECAST 5 Force will play in national security a decade logical competition, and a comprehensive or more into the future is the offering of tech­ definition of those specific policy goals of the nology. Thus a chief aim of the study was to Federal Government which should govern assess the impact of technological advances on long-term Air Force planning. Air Force capabilities. The first step in this as- The definition of a threat as an essential sessment was the work of twelve Technology input to a military planning study is fairly Paneis, which consisted of the following: straightfonvard. In for ecast , however, the activity of the Threat Panei went far beyond Flight Dynamics the traditional projection of numbers and types Propulsion of forces deployed. This panei also concerned Power Generation itself with the efforts of foreign countries in Sci­ Materials ence and education, the development of labora- Bioastronautics tories, research institutes, major testing faeili- Geophysics ties, production facilities, etc., particularly in Weapons major Communist countries. The objective was Detection & Surveillance to see where our opponents might be going Communications in the decade ahead and where they might be Data Processing & Display in relation to their present state of the art at Xavigation & Guidance any particular time in the future. Electronic Countermeasures and Electronic Counter-countermeasures starting the flow process These paneis examined all fields of Science These inputs were used by another group and technology that were considered to be of of paneis concerned primarily with the appliea- aotential interest to the Air Force. Their initial tion of the projected technical advances. These mtputs were projections of the State of the art were designated as Capability Paneis in the n terms of weapon/support Systems applica- areas of: ions in the post-1970 time period. In addition, :heir job was to identify those technical possi- General War nlities which might yield high achievement in Limited War nilitary technology. These were called the Continental Defense ‘high payoff” areas. Intelligence Òc Reconnaissance Compared with previous long-range, tech- Support (including subpanels for Com- aical planning studies, Project for ecast was mand and Control, Logistics, and Space) inique in having a special panei to conduct an íxtensive study of defense policy as expressed They dealt with long-range capability require- oy the decisions and actions of our national ments and with the translation of the technical .ivilian leadership. In Project for ecast a major possibilities into primary offensive and defen- íffort was undertaken to go far beyond the sive weapon systems and supporting systems for xaditional expression of general objectives of Intelligence and Reconnaissance, Communica­ )ur democratic form of govemment. for ecast tions, Command and Control, and Logistics. vas very specific in identifying those factors Their range of interest encompassed the full )f national policy which should influence de- spectrum of conflict