CHAPTER I
MISSION, COMMAND, ORGANIZATION, AND RESOURCES
. . The reorganization of USAF aerospace defense and
surveillance and warning resources, under consideration since
the spring of 1977,-finally. got underway in Jate 1979. On
1 October parts of "Aerospace Defense Command's, -mission,' as
delineated in AFR 23-9,' "Organization and Mission - Field,"
together with related units, Manpower, and systems, were trans-
ferred to Tactical Air Command, and. Air Force! Communications
Service. 1 4,The remainder -went .'to, StrategicsAir- Command on-.:;
1 December. 2 ,TAC became responsibles&r dijy-to day organijgt
; .,- zation-,:training,^equippingfsad«inistiati'onSrfd:jrepar3tion , .'''' i -
- of Aerospace" ?def ehse ^Interceptors i"an'deatmospTieric -warningte-" ■< i- ■
radars; SAC .had the;same..responsibility.t£oraii5sile.;waniing£ •;
./'...andispacecsurveillance^ystems^and AFCS tooi^over most of
: .ADC0M'5:.fomor.»coHttiunications 3iid<electronics|assets.sJAAl50:- -v :
.on ,1 December ,£:a new direct ■reporting , uMt 7 £&erosjiace~-'De--Kv •'
fense Center, was designated and activated '^Colorado ",i.:^-' .
, Springs.? Its new mission regulation? stated:?^ '[■:■ ■'■'-;'■'■■
.'I- ;.v. J... ADC provides staff support forJUr _ t
. Force functions and responsibilitieT'xequired*.*. .- -
'^^tojp^prijtjie SORAD/ADCOH strategicSerosjace^^ji^f ' \-
,w "" ■ defense'-fissfon.'tft seT^eTastSr^Fo^TfielS'l' 'g"* 1-3 ?"
agency-with coordinating authority £*J-irit~
integrating Air Force activities m the-st'rate-
gic aerospace defense mission area. "^if':^:^ ■■■ ■ '■';'■
After 1 December the major command ADCOM no-longer 'had a -■;-..
mission, but to the end of 1979 it had nofyef.beeh of- ' ' .-' ■'■
ficially disestablished. '.,1. t-- l '} r **' v ' '-* fp-*
\ _ " The 'reorganization chaigel .'oniy-'thViainer '
in which the USAF henceforth would manage the* resources it
devoted J:o_ aerospace defense.' "' Operational -con'-"
troi of those 'resources' remained with the'\Joint Chiefs
of Staff specified command ADCOK and the Durational, command
North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) . ADCOM (speci-
fied) operated within the JCS structure and so received
Coordinating authority was defined as authority to
require consultation but not to compel agreement. If the
parties concerned were unable to obtain agreement, the »
matter would be referred to the appointing authority, i.e.,
Hq USAF.
direction from the President through the Chairman of the
JCS. The JCS Unified Command plan, unchanged in 1979,
said the' specified conunand' s responsibilities were to
exercise operational control over US forces assigned, at-
tached, of otherwise made available for Warning of attack
and defense of the nation against air and space attack
and. to support other unKied and specified commands. The
broader responsibility for warning and. defense of the US',
Mask v and Canada remained with the binational command "
NORAD. It took direction from both the JCS and the Chief
of Canada's "ffefence Staff. Its functions were set down
in a Terms of Reference (TOE) document agreed upon by
Canada and the US..; The latest edition of the TOR had \ _,
been published in'.early,.I9755and remained :mf effect through,^
. out":1979 .'J,Since ,J>y;.agHeiie^l^'4oci^^(B^^egoi]^v^'^
ated every ;fiye -years j amew'.one was due.tosbejpublished'svi •-..
irifiSSO i sAsked by-theiJCS.forntstrecommendatioiis.and- v. r. -
* cosimentSi cnichanges : «hich ^should: .hescons idsredlduring the - - ,
upcoming. Tenegotiation|5:N0RADliisted':.the*follo™g jn.f • - . ,'
August 1979. 6 ? ' ' "> . >
. -. 1, 36th governments i should agre'e~to;the ss- ■ .""
sentiality of CINCKORAB .beiag ''the prime.. advocate
\. -.for North-American sir defense ^ jolicyyj^octriiie, . J;
\ . , programming! and operations*" > ? \' *' * y;;: .
■ 2.- Both should agree to '.cooperate: to the ~» '
\ 'fullest on space".»ttersf?- .:*:■..: ■''-.: s'--
■ 3. 'Both should agree that properly cleared
key Canadian personnel " v • .be granted full access
to all.„classified information and directives deemed:
essential for. the perfpimanee-of the NORAD mission-- -,j^
material that'"would normally be "avaiTable'to: CINC i; '""I
NORAD fori.the execution of his full/rage' of respon-
sibilities."
P\
Change of
On 1 Decemoer 1979 General James E, Hill, already
Commander in Chief of NORM, of the specified command ADCOM,
and of the major USAF command ADCOM, took command of the
new Aerospace Defense Center upon its designation and acti-
vation.8 General Hill, served in those several capacities
for all but two days of 1979. On 24 August he announced
his retirement effective 31 December. 9
A successor was not immediately named, ' -
but speculation that he would be an officer of lower rank
• than pastJORAD commanders* was confirmed when, in Sep-
sitembeiif I'hejISinbtifiectjCafiadaft through diplomatic channels, .
i*that thefAir^b'rcelintendedireducing the position to a * ' s
s ^three-star;billefegA?congre55i6hal mandate-'to reduce one
• i"Mr Force vfour|starSpo*sition in FT ,78 had. prompted the .. .
■If ictio« r 'Tiii^h^JI|^«^»siiid.,th»t "■; '.'.'in no way should,
■ithio'authorizedsgradeuchange,'he. perceived or viewed asaj'' -
-■' lesseninj*of3the importance 1 attached to the aerospace de-' ';
' I fense aissioh/;area"or;m the. capability of the United
S.tates to supportr its North American air defense respon-
sibilities."lv The; Canadian Deputy Commander in Chief,
NORAD, Lieutenant: : ,.GeMral.iK. t fc:;.le»is, reported to the .
s ADCOM .staffethat.le-'had: expressed his personaladissatis- .
JiactJLoiyiSfe?^6j!gjdU|^^0mwa, birtj.t i seeme4 i his w ^
\'gove™enS3^&enTe'ass"ufe"d-that the' US 'was now no' less
~ coimitted;to'-i*str'onpcontiIental air defense.il -The ■.■?'■
Conservative Pariyi' which: :c'ame : to power in -late 1979, viewed
the matter no /differently. * 2 ■ o n 21 December, the Air Force
announced Lieutenant General James V. Hartinger, commander
of TAC'sJwelfth Air Force/ would succeed General Hill. 15
On 28 December iGenera^ Hill turned over his command to
" LleutenanrJ-GeheralvHartingeRan a -ceremony at Peterson "8j ! \
AFB and retired,:;ejidiBg a distinguished 37 year military
career.**!* , W.-'s-. ■■,.
T . '' Since -the formation of KORAD in 1957 its commander
had always been a USAF four-star general.
**""' General Hill remained in Colorado Springs, and on
. 3 January 1580 was named executive vice president and manager
of the city's Chamber of Commerce.
Organizing Aerospace Defense for the Eighties and Beyond
The Reorganization
The air defense system protecting North America
was built in the 1950s and early 1960s principally for
protection against Soviet bomber attack. The decade 1965-
75 brought a shift in the threat away from bombers and in
favor of ballistic missiles. This development, coupled
with a U.S. policy decision not to deploy a ballistic ..'
; missile defcnsc.iystem,. resulted in decreased eaphasis'on
: the ' damage limitationvaissions 'of the North .'Americaftair.: .: ,- ;i -
defense' systea,; : reductions -.in its 5ize,\,and;delays,;fn;its-;;* ; S
modernization. -^Several Air Force-studies examined^thev' '■■■'.■ ''~. :
organizational' raji'fications of that change and 'recommended " ~
the'najor'-Air;Eorce::coii3and"headquarters associated'with ' ■
the mission be dissolved and the assets it managed dis- •• ."-"•'.
tributcd among ;several other major commands; But although
the Air Force continued to. reduce the amount of' money and
manpower' it devoted to the aerospace defense mission, it
did not take the final step. Congressional criticism,
however, in iate-1976;and early 1977 of costly redundancies
in management ; of^the>erospace- defense mission converged
"Vitlnffir Fb"rcelefef*of«StafffGeneralJ)avid Jonestown _____
determination to: achieve greater' savings and his -interest"^ *~^
in making organizational changes which; would strengthen -'
SAC's bid for the future space mission, in early"1977,
at General Jones' request, a special Air Staff study group
prepared a "Proposal For: A Reorganization of USAF Air
Defense and Surveillance/Warning. Resources." General Daniel
James, Jr., CIKCNORAD,.. offered an alternative for making
substantial' reductions in headquarters manning while re- •:. .,,
taining the existing organizational structure, but without
success. The final draft of the study emerged in January
1978. Nicknamed the "Greenbook", it became the blueprint
for disestablishing ADC0M.1S With General .lames' retire-
ment in December '1977, and the assignment of General James
E. Hill as CINCNORAD/ADCOM, the command's efforts concen-
trated, on implementing the Greenbook. General Hill believed
it essential that CINCNORAD/CINCAD continue to have clear
end-to-end control of essential warning systems, and be the
primary spokesman for improvements to existing systems and
for the acquisition of new ones. It followed, it his opinion,
that the residual Air Force management headquarters in
Colorado Springs should be the focal point for planning and
the prioritization of aerospace defense programs in the Air
Force budgetary process.
Consultation with Foreign Governments . (S-Decl-84)
Secretary of Defense approval of the reorganization plan
was contingent on the satisfactory completion of consul-
tations with the foreign governments concerned (Canada,
Australia, Denmark, Turkey, Great Britain, New Zealand,
Italy, Korea, and Iceland). It was expected such dis-
cussions would be little more than perfunctory in nature
and that approval would cone quickly, *6
*^\
»ryS^«*^*s*« ^T>»*5-™»«^,*a^-/Sr?***^
Since its officers were thoroughly ante- '*
grated into the fiORAD structure, Canada had been aware all
along of the Air Force's intentions to reorganize ADCOM. : _
^Canadian^Defeitce.Minister.flarney Hanson had no -particular §f
.;Objection*:to the proposal when it was presented him in .
'December 1978, but he"said_a final Canadian position would
not be taken until the Department of National Defence (NDHQ)
had completed its examination. Department of National
Defence (NDHQ) concerns, expressed' to the US air* .attache in
a 22 December meeting, were no different in substance than
those which had been raised about a year and one-half earlier
by Canadian officers at NORAB headquarters. (These had
centered on the effect the reorganization would have on
'CINCNORAD's control of his resources, and the apparent greater
linkage which would be created between Canada and SAC.)
■ for their'exanina oU8 SKTKJ^ 1 ^^-
information with the instrucdm TJ <f lUotial USAF
*• concluded as Sn a" p " s bu ^LW^ 5hould
assurances that -NDHOwa s "?taff^;*? e BS '«"3che received
as possible 19 Sonrt tS ■ 5 g th \P ro P<>sal as rapidly
^g^^Wn:foriurthe r -cllMllgnJ^Si|!|« h
dealing Kith-Canadian particination ™ ti» „„ Westions
aehts/23- wKlji-ij;,' '"^„ ln ," s | te |! c ? e fense requires
tion pWse, ^^^^^<^ '
v JaitialJIami™. p, ol ,i,„„ , ~ i
to. tarTJ^ontMeireor^fi&iiSlsiP iP- S®SW WiP^iming
zation plan.' .ReDresem3t,v«". U PP ? 1 '- of tte-reorgani-
first & teXS? f eel' ™^°M Y
in Colorado Springs 9-11 JanSw^di ^feSVS convened'
iapleaentation sch'duies SH 7 *" 7 •*'' "W^tfSiierai ■
namung docuirents of the' threfStfiia L *^W ™«
imposed since April 19?? (?L blseliM ST*} " W>rltloads
the Greenbookl but Air- ?}»?? :!f M ma ?" ln 2 da:e use| i "!
total would have to bf a e llif !£M V'" '
The Space and Missile Warning System Operations Working
Group, for example,' reported to the larger group that sig-
nificant differences existed between the number of personnel
required in those specialities and the number currently
available. A future meeting at Air Force Military Personnel
Center would probably be necessary to work out details.*"
The conferees agreed on a timetable for the next
several 'months. The Air Force master programming' plan was '
to be ready by 1 February. Concurrent with its preparation,
ADGOM and the three gaining commands would complete their
plans detailing major actions and tine phasing to accomplish
the reorganization and distribute them for coordination in .
early February. .. Final plans were to be sentsto; Air ;For,cej;ini : ,
early March.™ These 'were all preparatory to publican- 1 ""^*"
: nouncement on 15 March;' Allowing for a -period of.?60'days r fe"
'for public coMent^and/barriGgcomplications-^arising.irpn-'.,,'
/it. the reorganization was expected, to get underway ^on IS ...
May. Transfer of assets to TAC and SAC; would ^ake^lacej vM ;
1 July, and between 1 J July arid 1' October SAC would acquire"
space surveillance and missile warning assets. 27.;
The sooner public antquncement was made the -'..-
.better because .then the Air For'cef!could take.;initial. action
■• on personnel , affected by the' reorganization^ , ; 'The'dite IS " : .. : >...'
^arch,-planne44ir^n'.early.4.3Bwa.SjalMady,*two#pnthsAla.ter*v : ~
than the date originally projected. 'As mentioned^ consulta-
tions with foreign: "governments were hot completed^ until ■■';"■:-
February. The first of March was then' projected, but it too
passed by, and further delay ensued when OSD decided to in-
clude the ADCOM closure as part of a more comprehensive -
listing of .base closures and unit inactivations. Personnel
" planning waV thereby adversely affected.. Until the announce-, '
ment no steps could be taken to freeze personnel in critical^ .
specialties and .as time went on the resource of overseas,
returnees, which had beer expected to help fill some command
requirements, dried up as they were sent elsewhere.
Even as planning for the reorganization be-
gan in early 1979, Secretary of the Air Force Stetson asked .
the Air Staff to make a last zero-based examination of the
action to determine if organizational and resource management
objectives outlined in the Greenbook were still valid. ®
* The problem of equitable manning is discussed
later in this chapter.
'. Some question remained that they were. Undersecretary of
the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark wrote General Alien in the
middle of February that while he had gone along with the
reorganization "reluctantly" the previous summer when it
was being reviewed within the Office of the Secretary of
the Air Force, he had recently been inspired to raise the
issue again. Mark agreed that when cutbacks pinched in it
was Bore preferable to eliminate entirely organizations
which were no longer productive than to make cuts across
the board and thus penalize more viable organizations. He
remained, however, "not comfortable" with that part of the
'reorganization which would place in one command assets for
ibothstrategicswarningand retaliation. Operational con-
■«tioSjofsKarningssyste»s.'K3S:Tiotireally an issue, v .he said, ■ r «
fsincejiifciemained'Sith-'the -specified command ADCOM and .the
";binatiSniljC<)yaiid r ,l)01iAD,' but systems advocacy was. Tech- ; ,
• nology Jfor 'indicationsand' warning, systems required just ■; ■:-
"■ -as JKCfc'ffl'sSjiA'Jte: Mark's opinion, as did thafcfor ■nuclear,
:/retaliation^^nd^ : he'feared..that with the loss : of ■management.
'respohsibility-Uhe residual headquarters in Colorado Springs
would soon become unable to develop new technical require-
ments/": If SAC acquired management of these systems, it
would/have.the technical .capability to manage them, but Dr.
, Mark^ound^tjliatd^to believe it wouldgive them the same ;
pridfity^it-;wo"uJd .give to hew offensive weapons such as the
, 'M^^^atk^ai«he^ould^ike^o*s'ee v an*organi , za*tional'-sepa-;-'--
ratibhlqf-minageiek as r'liell. as. operational control, of indi-'
cations 'and' warning systems; and he believed it would be ... :
worthwhile to look at another "... combination of the ■
existing commands and' services which could be worked out if
ACCOM is abolished so that the separation of which I speak
can be : maintained."3C .
'.f-l '-'.'"' ■""■■' ' General Hill had a suggestion along those*
lines;' He- wrote~General-Allen in late February that should^
the Air Force believe it imperative to proceed with the re- 1
organization, it. could disestablish the major command, ADCOM,
and assign its atmospheric defense assets to TAC, but not
assign space and missile warning assets- to SAC. He proposed
these should be left where they were and used as the nucleus
of a new command to which other space assets would eventually
be assigned. General Hill questioned whether the reorgani-
zation should proceed at all. T,he question was not whether
the reorganization could be made to work, but whether it
would achieve its stated goals. The zero-based review being
undertaken by the Air Staff should, according to the ADCOM^
commander, address the three objectives of the reorganization
as Stated in the Greenbook: improved warfighting capabil-
ity, reduction in management overhead, and reduction in
manpower. General Hill concluded the reorganization would
not in fact achieve those objectives: warfighting capa-
bilities would not be enhanced, management overhead would
be reduced but at the cost of established Air Force princi-
ples or organization and management, and the modest manpower
savings realized did not seem to justify the major reorgan-
ization contemplated. General Hill pointed out that it was '•
not too late for the Air Force to change its institutional' -
mind, and he recommended to the Chief of Staff that the
reorganization either not proceed at all or that it be
oriented to the space organization suggested above. 5 *
.;," . ■;' . ,, The.'Zero-based review/conducted 'by' a ' ' **■
working group ; headed by Major General Daryle -Tripp ■ (AF/XOX) ,
did not change the decision to reorganize. The results pre-,
sented to' Secretary. Stetson on 26 February are summarized.: 52
1. ^Manpower and cost avoidances (790 manpower spaces
and $13.8 million in annual recurring costs after. the first
year) could be realized.
2, The reorganization would not necessarily improve
warfighting capabilities, but it would not degrade them
either. . ,*„>■*
3. CINCNORAD/CINCAD would continue to have the same
access for purposes of advocacy as then existed, and as com'
mander of the USAF headquarters element he would continue to
advocate USAF air defense and surveillance/warning operational
doctrine and requirements to the Secretary of the Air Force,
CSAF, and Hq USAF.
4, Kith regard to consideration then being given to
future management of' space systems, the reorganization did
not '.'... necessarily preempt further considerations and
eventual selection of a future management scheme £ot those
5. Further clarification of the mission, specific
functions, manning, and location of the new headquarters
element in Colorado Springs was needed.
6. The basic recommendations of the January 1978 study
should be adopted.
Secretary Stetson agreed the reorganization should continue
and directed attention be given to fulfillment of paragraph
five above. He also asked that a name other than Air Force
Element NORAD/ADCOM be selected for the new headquarters. 5 '
General Allen transmitted these directions to General Hill. 3 '
The CINCNORAD replied in the middle of April that his staff
had been, working hard to develop manpower requirements and
new mission and function statements for the new headquarters
and to find a more suitable name for it. He recommended
Aerospace Defense Center as a designation descriptive of the
organization's mission. The "absolute minimum" number of ..
spaces required was 1,573. Facilities requirements for the ■
new headquarters were being studied by a SAC/ADCOM team, he
said, and the results would be ready by the end of April. , j
General. Hill pledged ADCOM would try to make the transition '"
work as smoothly as possible so as not to degrade the nation's
defensive capability. 35
:■'■ ' The focal point of ADCOM planning was the DCS/.-
Plans Reorganization Office, formed in mid-January 1979 and
headed by Lieutenant Colonel Ron Demijohn.* A Reorganization
Working Group, composed of representatives from all deputates
and Special Staff Elements, provided staff support. 36 The
Reorganization Office's first large order of business was
preparation of a draft ADCOM Programming Plan (PPlan) 79-1,
"Aerospace Defense Reorganization." The c draft PPJan^con-^.^,^
■sisted*oi*a^'asic^'laV*and*20*annexesTwlich*dficii1Jed"""
assumptions regarding the course the reorganization would
take, the residual responsibilities to be left CINCNORAD/
CINCAD/Air Force Element, NORAD/ADCOM, and individual staff
actions to be taken and when they would be taken. 3 ' Ready
by early February, the draft PPlan went to TAC, SAC, and AFCS
for coordination, • In return, ADCOM received for comment the
draft plans of those commands. Coordination revealed disa- .'
greement over the specific functions of the command which
would exercise operational control and those of the commands
which would be responsible for day-to-day resource manage 1
ment. 38 Because of these and other differences, approval^
of the programming plans which went to Air Force in the mid-
dle of March was delayed. Headquarters USAF advised that 23
series regulations (Organization and Mission-Field) and
T~ In early October 1979 It Col P. M. Fleming suc-
It Col Demijohn as the Reorganization Project Officer.
memorandums of agreement, and not programming plans, were
the proper places wherein to solve them, and added, "Mission
directives should clearly define PPBS /planning, Programming,
and Budgeting System/ and operational requirements, advocacy
responsibilities, and the inter-command relationships neces-
sary to carry out these responsibilities." 39 .New mission
directives (drafts of a new APR 23-9, Organization and
Mission-Field, and of NORAD/ADCOM Regulation 20-4, Head-
quarters NORAD/ADCOM Organization and Functions)' were also
in preparation at that time. Coordination was continuing
when the Air Force made public its reorganization proposal.
Public -Response. . .On 29 March 1979 the Air Force. '
plan to reorganizesaerospace- defense forces ,»as; announced as";
part of a' long. list- of Defense Department base closures and
realignments. .Highlighted as savings from the ADCOM action
were 790 civilian and military spaces and $12.9 million annu-
ally in cost -avoidance (one time costs the first year would
be' $4.9 million). Actions to transfer ADCOM's resources to
SAC, TAC, and AFCS, and then subsequently to dissolve the ,
command, were to begin in the summer of 1979 and be completed
over an 18-month period. In accordance with Title 1C, United
States Code, Section 2687-, the Air Force said it would not
take any irrevocable actions for 60 days, until 20 May, to
allow for public review and comment. '" Upon the announce-
\menti*General^Hill^ent*a 4 person3l w cbmmunftation'to his** - ; '■'"'■"
headquarters staff and field organizations explaining |h.at
Air Force efforts to streamline its activities did not mean
its commitment to defense of the continent had weakened.
CINCNORAD said while some people would lose their jobs and
some would have to move to other locations, ail possible
would be done to minimize the effect of the change on every-
one. He asked all to keep a positive attitude during the f .
complicated undertaking ahead ahd'to do their best to keep '■
the defense of North America at a high level of effective-
ness. ^1
Members of Colorado's Congressional delegation
and Colorado Springs civic and business leaders appeared
skeptical that the "ends of national defense would be best
served by the change, but they expressed no great concern for
its economic implications. Representatives Ken Kramer (R-Colo)
of Colorado Springs and Ray Kogovsek (D-Colo) of Pueblo, and
Senators Gary Hart (D-Colo) and William Armstrong (R-Colo),
stated they would attempt to get the decision reversed, hut
all jdmitted it would be difficult to do so. Business leaders
could foresee no long-term effect on the local economy
from the reorganization. The influx of new firms over the
past several years was steadily changing the character of
the work force from one with a heavy military character to
a civilian emphasis, a trend most believed was a good thing.
The total military presence was not expected to change
significantly since the Any expected to continue to main-
tain substantial forces at Fort Carson. '2 The housing
market, a critical barometer of economic vitality in the
area, was strong. 43 Economic statistics issued by the
Pikes Peak Area Council in early April showed continued
business vitality, a condition which suggested that even
the limited impact projected by the Air Force environmental
assessment would- not in fact occur, because the assessment-:-- -'-
had 'used two-year old statistics.*'' '..• ■'■ : ■ . ",
Local examination of the Air Force proposal ■
began when members of the Colorado Congressional delegation ■
announced, on H'JSpril, establishment of an ADCOH Task .Force.
The 13-iiember committee, representing a broad spectrum of
Colorado Springs' political, business, labor, religious, and
military communities, would solicit public reactions, analyze
the decision and its impact on the area, and report its find-
ings to Colorado Congressmen for their use in Congressional . .
hearings set foT late April and early May. Since.an important
Task.Force. goal -was J.'Jo.. succeed„iii, getting the rf AA'r*F.orce?to<- ,«
''justify Mi itV proposals to the people in this area who will be
affected by the cutback," a public meeting with Air Force
officials was arranged for 20 April. ^
An estimated 200 people gathered in Centennial
Hall that Friday afternoon, lieutenant General A, C. Green-
leaf, DCS/Prograis and Evaluation, Headquarters USAF, the
principal Air Force spokesman, was assisted by a team of
military and civilian experts from the Air Staff and Office
of the Secretary of the Air Force. General Greenleaf spoke
of the ADCOM decision as one in a continuum of management
actions which had been going on for as long as the Air Force
had been in being, but which had received particular atten-
tion during the past five years. Personnel costs were going
up even as total personnel resources were dwindling. The Air
* The Air Force Environmental Impact Assessment
(F.IA) will be discussed at greater length later in this
chapter.
Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991
Published by:
Chadwyck-Healey Inc., 1101 K
advanced capabilities Materials were identrtied. obtained, assembled, and indexedby the National
Security Archive, a non-profit, Washington, D.C. based research institute and library. The microfiche
3f Space: 1946-1991 Guideand Index.
Arrangement of Information on the Microfiche:
The documents are arranged in chronological order. A unique identification number is assigned to
each document. Each new document begins a new iine on the microfiche.
Document Quality:
The quality of the original materia! varies, in the case of esehdocument, Chadwyck-Healey Inc. has
filmed the best copy made available by the National Security Archive.
Microfiche Numbering:
The unique identification numbers assigned to the documents are listed in the top right hand comer
of the microfiche tills strip.
Technical Deta:
Producing Laboratory: Chadwyck-Healey inc.
Date of Publication of Microfiche Edition: 1991
Format: 49 frame. 1 05mm x 143mm silver halide microfiche, 24x nominal reduction
The arrangement of the pages on microfiche is the property of Chadwyck-Healey Inc. Paper copies
of the arrangement of pages on microfiche may be made without the written permission of
Chadwyck-Healey Inc. for internal and reference use only and not for resale.
Distribution Outside the USA:
Chadwyck-Healey Ltd., Cambridge Place, Cambridge C82 1 NR, England
Document Quality:
Through the useof the Freedom of Information Act and an extensive network of government, media,
and academic contacts, the National Security Archive has developed this varied collection of primary
materials. Just as the type of materials included varies, so does the quality of each document.
The National Security Archive has madeevery effort to provide Chadwyck-Healey Inc. with the best
quality, most complete copy available of each document Chadwyck-Healey inc. has faithfully
reproduced on microfiche exactly what was provided by the National Security Archive.
Many of tfiedocurnentsindudedin this publication were previously classified bythe U.S. Government
and even when declassified, sections or pages may be obliterated by the government due to the
potentially sensitive information contained in them.
cables, memoranda, intelligence reports, briefing papers, Congressional reports, official letters, and
pressreports.ThisvariefycanpresentdifT^
and processing cannot entirely overcome.
This isa rich and varied source of primary documents made available for research and al! microfiche
have been produced to the highest quality and conform io AliM, 831 and ANSI standards.
Force was attempting to continue to meet its obligations by
reducing supervisory overhead in management headquarters and
using the authorizations saved to fill requirements in com-
batant elements. In the particular case of ADCOM, however,
General Greenleaf said the impetus came from Congress, spe-
cifically from the House and Senate Appropriations Subcom-
mittees, whose concerns about possible costly duplication
or functions between ADCOM, SAC, and TAC were voiced in
hearings in the winter of 1976-77 and eventually included in
a House report of Jun 1977, The Air Force had responded by
examining its options for accomplishing the mission by a
redistribution of aerospace defense elements to several other
commands, and had decided it was feasible to do so. The
. action, General Greenleaf explained, did not mean the Air
Force 'had -decided to pay less attention to aerospace defense:
several recently approved and planned enhancements of the
network would maintain an effective system with a fraction of
.the manpower .-presently required. He also emphasized that the
change would have no effect on CHOORAD's overall operational
control of North American air defense. Closing out his re-
marks, the AiT Force DCS/Programs and Evaluation detailed the
changes which the Air Force would make under the proposal and
the timetable for same/ 6
. . . . The greater part of the three and one-half hour
_ meeting was taken, up with questions raised by members of, the
" ta'sk'jnfce^and^frbin the floor (predominately TroV retired*"' " *"'
officers),- and responses from General Greenleaf and his
colleagues, on two broad issues; the economic effect of the
reorganization on Colorado Springs and the general effect of
the change on the defense posture of the nation. Local
business and civic leaders expressed general dissatisfaction
with the Air Force's Environmental Impact Assessment because
it lacked enough specific detail to enable them to prepare ~
plans (principally budgetary in nature) which would mitigate'
the socio-economic effects of the action. Colorado Springs
Mayor Robert Issac seemed to sum up those concerns/ 7
I certainly didn't want to infer that ... we
in any way want to interfere with economy and
government at any level ... We just want to
know through the proper procedures through the
Air Force . . . that we will be able to predict
the effect because ... a minor and short term
effect ... can be major . . . when we have to
balance our budget ... at the local level . . .
we would like to know what the iapact is going
to be and we think the work should be done and
we should be provided with information that we
don't know and that's how nany are going to
aove out when.
The Air Force replied that the iapact on the area, one known
to be experiencing rapid growth, had been compared with the
effect of like actions on other cossunities which had in the
past experienced the sane situation, and the conclusion was
the effect would be minimal. Since its planning was not coq-
plete, the Air Force could not yet provide complete inforaa-
tion on specific nuaber-s and types of jobs, which would he af -
fectedi ■ General >Greenleaf. and. Mr. Janes F^Boatrightj Acting'.!
Principal Deputy Assistant .Secretary of the"Air.<Force..for .'. : . ':
Installations, expressed confidence that the AiK. Force' had"" . -
complied with the National Environmental PolicyJAct;,.- : "rhey< ... ■'-,
were reluctant to go into detail, however, ab6at.i3ethodology..- i
for fear of prejudicing the Air Force's' caseyha'jawisuit-s >
which had been filed just two days before the public meet- 7 '
ing.*W
On the broader issue of the reorganization's ef-
fect on national defense, several forser senior air defense
coamanders and key NORAD staff officers, all -retired, -ex- '.'■.■'
b ,p.ressedrdis.5a.tisfa.ction»with •the Ji £rend.in.idef ense spending;,,. -'
which had reduced air defense manpower and systems;, capability
over the last decade, and questioned the wisdom : of' breaking
up the organization and dispersing the specialexpertise
which existed in ABCOM headquarters to other commands. Doubt
was expressed sbout the continued effectiveness and timeli-
ness of decision-making under such circumstances.^
. General Greenleaf expressed faith in the ability 1
of the Air Force to be innovative in the face of adversity.
He said: M
I- have enough confidence in this Air Force of
ours , . ' , that we have demonstrated over the
years marvelous resiliency in changing our minds
and are now doing things we thought unimportant
The law suit is discussed later in this chapter.
at the time or highly undesirable to do* tfe
are running out of, if He have not already run
out of, curacies if we continue to face re-
duction in resources provided to the Air Force
. . . , sad still do hopefully and effectively
the missisns that have been assigned to the
Air Force.
He said that after careful study the ^ir Force had determined
that it no longer needed a manageoent headquarters devoted to
air defense satters. The gaining commands were expected to
give close attention to those portions of the mission they ■?
inherited. They would perform the day-to-day management
tasks, but CINCKORAD's operational control remained invio-
late. Air Force interest in the aerospace defense mission
regained high— witness the new JSS system, AtfACS, and io-
proveuents in missile warning radars-"-and the change would
only eliminate headquarters overhead. Greenleaf said the
Air Force was certain no weaknesses in its posture would re-
sult, and the savings to be realized by the action were sub-
stantial. 51
Colorado Congressmen Ray Kogovsek and'Ken Kramer
"■providediclosing'-'-conuaents'to the i public^Beetingr^Kogovsek~* "" iH
expressed concern about the potential economic effect the
reorganization would have on Colorado Springs ..but his larger
concern was for 'the implications it had for the national de-
fense posture. He personally felt the proposal was a mis-
take, and he irtended to do all he could to get the issue
examined in. upcoming House Armed Services Committee hearings,
but he rated as slim his chances of changing things. Repre- *
seutative Kramer added that although the general mood of the -""
Congress was to "cut back" on defense spending, it would have
to be convinced that the change would not jeopardize national
defense. Both saw the hearings on military construction and
base closures coming in late April and early May as perhaps
the only opportunity to alter the course of the reorganiza-
tion.^
The Colorado Springs town meeting anticipated what
the experience of the next several months would prove: no
local organized opposition to the closure of ADCOH existed.
The meeting was the high point of Colorado Springs' interest
in the closure. No other such 'gathering was held for the pur-
pose of fact-finding or to register opposition. After a brief
revival of interest during litigation brought by ADCOM en*
ployees to stop the action, straight news coverage became in-
frequent and there was no editorial consent.
Colorado Congressmen were prepared ;o take the re-
organization question to the floor of the Congress. It will
be recalled that the ADCOM Tasic Force had been organized to
assist then by providing information needed for interrogation
of Air Force witnesses in upcoming Senate and House hearings.
The Task Force examined the savings in dollars and manpower,
the economic isapact on the local area, and effect on the
national defense posture. ' Its report forwarded 24 April,
was framed as a series of questions the answers to which
Eight more fully illusinate Air Force intentions with regard
to aerospace defense 2s a whole and ADCOM in particular,^
If any change were to he nade, it would happen during the leg-
islative process -and.hinge on -vhether or not the Congress
could be convinced -to withhold funds for the action.
The ADC0M reorganization was brought to the atten-
tion of the Congress "daring late April and early Hay 1979 in
hearings before^the Subcommittee on Appropriations and the
Military Construction and Stockpiles Subcommittee of the Sen-
ate Araed Services Cosaittee. Representative Ken Kramer,
freshaan Congressman fros the Fifth District, appearing as a
witness before the House subcommittee on 25 April, voiced his
conviction that sir defense would be hurt by the decision to
, abolish ADCOM. ; . He said he had consequently introduced a
(Resolution. of*Bisapproval^which*had "been Teferred'^o'*th*e' ,ft '- r;,wf '
House Armed Services* Coaaitteer Kramer said he had been
criticised for his stand' because of his commitment to reduc-
tion in federal spending and the fact that ADCOM was located
in his district". Anticipating this reaction, he said he had
studied the proposal carefully; and while his commitsent to a
balanced budget remained strong, he gave defense first pri-
ority in the use. o£ funds. Borrowing from the findings of
the ADCOM Task Force," Kramer discussed the present state of
the nation's air defense. posture, concerns about the change
expressed by retired past commanders and staff officers of
NORAD, the prospects for maintaining a credible posture fol-
lowing the reorganization, the international implications of
the action, the validity of the cost savings advertised by the
Air Force, and the effect the dissolution of ADCOM would have
on the upcoming Air Force decision regarding space organiza-
tion. In summation, the Colorado Congressmen called the
proposal "ill-designed, ill-timed, and {reflective o0 a
misguided sense of priorities." At the conclusion of Kramer's
statement the Subcommittee Chairman, Gunn McKay (D-Utah)
thanked him, but noted that the committee did not have the
authority to approve or disapprove base closures; the hear-
ings were informative in nature and concerned with contruc-
tion requirements arising out of military realignments. A
list of questions submitted by Kramer were sent to the Air
Force and the answers subsequently placed in the record of
the hearings. The three members of the subcommittee present
raised no questions. 54
In addition to his efforts before the McKay Sub-
committee, Representative Kramer also requested the General .
Accounting Office examine the adequacy and accuracy of the
cost savings the Air Force said would result from the reor-
ganization. The results of the inquiry, presented to Kramer's
staff in the middle of May and in a report of 25 June, found
little to dispute in the Air Force figures for annual re- 3v-
curring sayings (the Air Force said $12. 7M and the GAO esti- '
mated $12. 8M); but the GAO noted Air Force estimates of one-
time costs ($4.9M) might be from $1,9M to $9.3M low, depending
upon what -the Air Force finally did with regard to facility
enhanceeents at Peterson AFB, Offutt AFB, and langley AFB.
The GAO said the Air Foice projected spending only $500,000
on minor construction, but facility costs could rise to as
much as $J,.8M if the Air Force decided to improve facilities
at Langley and Offutt AFBs to accommodate personnel incoming
as a result of the reorganization ($2.4M), and build a new
headquarters at Peterson for the remaining ADC0M personnel
vacating .-the'-Chidlawauilding • ($7; 4M) . - The -GAO ^acknowledged* >-,
that while its report was being prepared the Air Force had
informed it that existing Peterson AFB facilities could ac-
commodate remaining personnel, and the new headquarters build-
ing would not be built.* In summary, the GAO review generally
substantiated Air Force figures with regard to savings which
would result from the reorganization, pointing out only that
if the Air Force chose to proceed with the enhancements which,
had been surveyed the' one-time cost would be much higher than 5
projected. 55
linlike Representative Kramer, Senator Gary Hart,
in his inquiry during Senate hearings in early May, took no
stand against' the disestablishment of ADCOM p_er se, but viewed
it as the inevitable consequence of past piecemeal planning
which raised doubts about the adequacy and character of future
air and space defense forces. His view all along had been that
the Air Force would have to prove that the reorganization was
"~~ ""*" The issue of bedding down ABC on Peterson will I
discussed later in this chapter.
economically and militarily sound, and to this end he had
supported the investigative efforts of the Colorado Springs
Task Force; but he had been pessimistic that the decision
could be reversed in the' 'Congress and had even urged realis-
tic acceptance of the action. 56 "We can't reverse the de-
cision just because we don't like it," he told a Colorado
Springs audience in April, 57 Hart's questioning of Air
Force officials during hearings of his Subcommittee on
Military Construction and Stockpiles (Armed Services Com-
mittee) on 1 and 16 May, was based on issues raised in the
Task Force Report, and brought assurances that the savings
were real and the change meant no fundamental shift in U.S.
air defense- policy. 58 Still, the Senator believed a review
1 of future air and space defense requirements was needed, and
he had inserted in the FY-SO military construction bill a re-
quest .for same.i' The BOD would report back to the Congress
during "consideration of the 1981 budget in January 1980*59
As for concerns = about the economic effect on Colorado Springs
of losing ADCOM, Hart was hopeful it could be offset, at least
in part, by the location there of a new facility associated
with the Air Force's growing space mission. From his posi-
tion as chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee
he. worked to achieve that end. On 20 December the Air
Force -announced^it intended Jocating^a SllO. million. Conso- . . ~.
lid'ateU'Space^erations^Center'tCSOC) 10 miles"east of
Colorado Springs. Construction would begin in 1982 and the
facility was expected to become operational in the mid-1980s,
ultimately, the : CSOC would employ about 1,800 military,
civilian federal, and contractor personnel.* The promise of
this new installation associated with the Air Force's bur-
geoning space -mission seemed to sweep away whatever concerns
still. lingered' about the economic consequences of the earlier *
closure, and it t not the demise of ADCOM, became one of the
top Ithnews stories of 1978 as compiled by the Colorado
Springs Gazette Telegraph . 60
The Air Force had anticipated correctly that oe-
causeof the generally good economic climate of the Colorado
Springs area there would be no public effort to block the
dissolution of ADCOM. Lacking encouragement from their con-
stituents, and sensitive to the prevailing mood of the Congress
to reduce federal spending, members of the Colorado delegation
could do little more than register their concern over the pos-
sible effect the change would have on the national defense
jee discussion of CSOC, pp 111-115.
posture. Accomplishment of Air Force plans was delayed,
however, by 10 ADCOM civilian employees, who, in April 1979,
brought suit against the government charging the Air Force
had failed to coaply completely with national environmental
policy.
EIA and the law's Delay. (Bj The National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 s stipulated that any govern-
ment agency proposing a major action which would significant-
ly affect the quality of the human environment was required
to prepare a detailed statement of the environmental impact
expected to result from the proposed action. The Defense
Department regulation intended as a guide to action in such -5
matters stated that "in. malting a judgment in a particular '
case. -it will be necessary for the proponent of the action
to a|gess the expected environmental effects of the action
in conjunction with the intent of . . . NEPA . . .", and it
directed that a decision not be made until the environmental
consequences had been assessed. Should the investigation
show the action would have an environmental effect on a large
scale "or have a serious environmental effect in a more re-
stricted geographical area . . . ", then it was to be con-
sidered a major action affecting the quality of the human
environment and would require preparation of a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 6 ^ ^^^s^, ,„-*™j-w*-"-
Iii its efforts to comply with NEPA, Headquarters
USAF assiped the task of assessing the environmental impact
of the ADCOM. reorganization to the USAF Engineering Services
Center, Tyndall AFE, Florida. Its analysis, published in
April 1978, focused on Colorado Springs (including El Paso
and Teller counties), which would lose 1,649 military and ' - .
civilian service authorizations, and Tyndall AFE, Florida, "£'
which would gain 215. Other increases--to Offutt AFB,
• Nebraska (190); Langley AFB, Virginia (166); and Scott AFB,
Illinois (26)--were expected to have so little human and
natural environmental impact that it was decided a full exam-
ination was not required. The Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) anticipated the following adverse environmental effects
in the Colorado Springs area from the reorganization :° z
*~ Pub L. 91-190, Jan, 1, 1979, 83 Stat. 852, clas-
sified to section 4321 et s^. of Title 42, The Public Health
and Welfare.
The proposed action would affect 8,583 persons
(military, civilian, and their dependents),
most of whom would move from the Colorado
Springs Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA).* This was about 2.7 percent
of the total SMSA population, estimated at
340,000.
Unemployment in the Colorado Springs SMSA
would increase by 1.6 percent, from an
average of 5.7 percent (period Oct 76-
Sep 77) to 7.3 percent.
There would be a loss in personal income in
the Colorado Springs SMSA of about $55
million.
4. El Paso County revenues could decrease by
an estimated $1.7 million.
5. Air Force procurement would probably be
reduced by about $1 million,
6. The housing vacancy rate would rise from
about 5 percent to 7.7 percent, at least
in the short term.
7. About 1,540 students would leave local schools*
resulting in a reduction in federal funding of
about 8,4 percent (PL 81-874 funds).
Savings to the Air Force from the action would be $14.8
million in the first year of implementation ($17.6 million
minus $2.8 million one-time costs for transferring personnel),
and $17,6 million each year thereafter. Most of it repre*
sented personnel costs, ^
™' The SMSA included the city of specified population
which constituted the central city and the county or counties
in which it was located. The SMSA also included contiguous
counties when the economic and social relationships between
the central and contiguous counties met specified critera of
metropolitan character and integration.
After reviewing the assessment, the Chairman of
the USAF Environmental Protection Committee concluded "...
this proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment and it is not likely to be
highly controversial with regard to its environmental im-
pacts. "&4 He determined that the provisions of the MEPA had
been satisfied and a formal EIS was not required. 65 Although
the Air Force subsequently made changes in the number of peo-
ple to be moved from the Colorado Springs area (a reduction
of about 300) and in the number to be located at each gaining
base (those originally intended for Tyndall AFB would be lo-
cated at langley AFB), they were not believed to be of suf-
ficient consequence to alter the conclusion that no further
examination of the environmental consequences of the action
was required. && In summary, the Air Force concluded that
since the Colorado Springs area economy was dynamic in its
growth, the irapact of the reorganization would be minimal in
its effect and short-lived in duration.
In February 1979 ADCOM advised USAF that a recent
review of the assessment was sufficient "... to raise
doubts as to whether the document could stand the test of
detailed public scrutiny." ADCOM anticipated such an ex-
amination when the reorganization finally became public, and
said it was not in a position to defend the environmental
aspects of the decision.^ 7 Air Force was willing to assume
that burden, and replied that although "... the nature of
the proposed action ..." forbid involving ADCOM personnel
in the preparation of the assessment, "The current document
is the final product of " . . . /anj extensive review and
coordination process at Hq USAF, ..." and would stand up
under scrutiny.^ A month later the Air Force's decision
was challenged in a court of law.
The inadequacies of the EIA were the basis for a
class action suit ( Willett et alv. Brown et__al ) brought by
10 ADCOM civilian employees "and filed" in t¥e" District Court
of Colorado in Denver or 18 April 1979.* The suit held that
*"" Plaintiffs were Richard N. Willett, Rosella M.
Tellers, Louis R. Taylor, Linda C. MacCiendon, Owen A. Moore,
Archie H. Alexander, James E.Thsbert, Edward C. Haning,
BaTry A. Hinton, and Phillip Montoya. As was customary in
such cases, named as defendants were Secretary of Defense
Harold Brown, Secretary of the Air Force John Stetson, and
Air Force Chief of Staff General lew Allen-
in its planning the Air Force had failed to comply complete-
ly with provisions of the NEPA. In summary, the plaintiffs
claimed: (1) The Air Force had violated 10 United States
Code, Section 2687 by not making prior public announcement
that ACCOM was a candidate for closure, (2) It had substan-
tially departed front general policies and procedures of the
NEPA in the proposed action, (3) It had violated DOD and
USAF regulations pertaining to the NEPA, and (4) It had
failed to conduct the environmental and technological assess-
ment necessary for preparation of an adequate and detailed
environmental impact statement, and had refused to prepare
such a statement. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction to
freeze all reorganisation actions until the government had
complied with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 and
other applicable statutes and regulations, 69 Richard Hanes,
lawyer for the defendants,* called the' suit a "delaying
tactic" to force the government to prepare a lengthy EIS.
Time would be gained for Colorado members of Congress to
explore the issue more fully in committee hearings. If
enough support were forthcoming, perhaps the defense appro-
priations bill could be written to forbid use of funds to
disestablish ADCOM. 70 The government responded to the suit
by denying most of the allegations, calling some of the
plaintiffs' references to statutes incomplete and inaccurate
and others conclusions of law a response to which was unnec*
essary. It asked that the suit be dismissed. 71
On 23 May, six days before the. sixty day mori-
torium on Air Force actions was to expire; U.S. District Judge
Sherman G. Finesilver hear arguments by both sides. He then
denied the Air Force': motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit
and its request for summary judgment, and ruled in favor of
the plaintiffs by granting a temporary injunction against the
Air Force proceeding with any irrevocable action in conjunc-
tion with the reorganization.
* — The Colorado Springs firm of Spurgei
Howbert represented the plaintiffs.
Judge Finesilver's 14-page summation examined the
defendant's argument that since its assessment had found no
adverse effects on the natural enviionraent in the Colorado
Springs area, and only short-lived socio-economic effects,
and since the action was not a major one affecting the quality
of the human environment as defined in DOD regulations, it
was not necessary to prepare a lengthy EIS. The court held
the Air Force's contention that an EIS was not necessary was
not a reasonable one. The judge highlighted two deficiencies
in the assessment process which led to that opinion. First,
the supplemental assessment conducted by Mr. Thomas Lord,
Chief of Environmental Planning Division, Hq TAC, pursuant to
a change in Air Force plans and its intention to send some
400 personnel to Langley AFB, Virginia instead of Tyndall AFB,
Florida, had been oral and informal. Judge Finesilver ruled
this was not a reasonable exercise of discretion in a formal
assessment. Secondly, the assessment did not address the ef-
fect on the environment of the construction of the building
which the Air Force said would be required to house about 600
personnel sent to Peterson AFB upon closure of the Chidlaw
Building. This also was not a reasonable exercise of dis-
cretion, according to Judge Finesilver. The judge also dis-
agreed with the Air Force's emphasis in its testimony on
natural or biophysical effects at the expense of socio-
economic ones, saying the latter concerns were so "entwined"
with natural environmental ones as to give them considerable
weight. Neither could he agree with the view expressed by
the Air Force that the NEPA "... is for the enlightenment
of the decision-maters" (Finesilver's words). He said the
general public [to include the plaintiffs) was entitled to
the most complete information possible, and, according to the
"udge, this might best be obtained by "a formal and complete
written assessment . , . "* The judge said that for a pre-
iminary injunction to be ruled the plaintiffs merely needed
o show reasonable probability that they would ultimately
prevail, and they had done so. In issuing his temporary in-
"unction the judge determined "... the threatened harm to
plaintiffs far outweighs the actual harm which will accrue
to defendants i : the injunction is granted." He also denied
* As for broad public policy considerations behind
NEPA, the judge said many biophysical, natural, and human
components must be examined and alternatives and their effect
considered, and this required broad rather than narrow com-
pliance with the Act's tenants, and compliance with the spirit
of the Act "... even when possibly not technically re-
quired, ..."
the defendant's claim that the plaintiffs' suit should be
dismissed since closure cf a military facility was riot
involved (as defined in 10 U.S.C. S 2687). He called such
arguments "spurious," since the Chidlaw Building was clearly
military in purpose and under the control and direction of
the Department of Defense. 72 At this late May hearing a
trial date was set for 22 June, but then subsequently post-
poned indefinitely at the Air Force's request to give it
ample time to respond to questions raised by the court. A
status conference would be held in Judge Finsilver's court
18 July, and a new trial date set then. 73
On 18 July the Air Force again motioned the court
either to dismiss the case or to issue a summary judgment
based on a revised environmental assessment which it presented
at that time. The Air force stated if had made every effort
to be responsive to Judge finesilver's concerns expressed in
the 23 May Memorandum of Opinion. The judge had raised doubts
about the documentation and completeness of the environmental
assessment, so the Air Force had prepared a new, more compre-
hensive, one. The earlier assessment had not addressed the
impact of the Air Force's planned new building for headquar-
ters personnel at Peterson AFB, to which the Air Force pre-
sented an affidavit that it did not intend to build such a
facility. To the court's concern about "... emphasis
placed by defendants on the effects on the natural or bio-
physical environment at the expense of the socio-economic en-
vironment," the Air Force referred to its .new assessment which
had corrected that imbalance. In answer to the court's ruling
that NEPA should be considered for the enlightenment of the
general public as well as the decision-makers, the Air Force
replied the assessment -would be made available to those af-
fected by the ADCOM reorganization and a wide-range of other
interested parties. Those actions taken, the Air Force
thought' the original issues raised by the plaintiffs were now
"moot," and, as mentioned above, it uTged dismissal of the
plaintiff's action.. Judge Finesilver thereupon gave the
plaintiffs until 1 August to respond to the Air Force's mo-
tion. The government would then have about a week to rebut. 4 .
The plaintiffs replied their complaint was not now
moot just because the Air Force had amended its EIA, since
"... it /I he complaintj is not limited to only the initial
EIA but addressed the totality of the actions taken by the
Defendants as showing their noncompliance with ths statutory
requirements; and the Amended EIA is not conclusive as a mat-
ter of law on all issues of the Plaintiffs' complaint; and
there still remain substantial material issues of fact which
require a trial or. the merits ,"75 The plaintiffs claimed that
the motion to dismiss was not appropriate. They pleaded the
motion for Summary Judgment was to determine whether or not
there vas any genuine issue as to material facts; and the
court was not permitted to decide any issues of facts upon a
motion for Summary Judgment, but must solely determine whether
there was an issue of fact to be tried. Just because the de-
fendants addressed all of the issues in the amended EIA mi
not a test of whether or not Summary Judgment should be grant-
ed. To i'ne defendant's claim that the amended EIA had re-
medied the inadequacies of the original assessment, and that
no material issue of fact remained to be determined, the
plaintiffs replied there was a different conclusion to be
drawn and that such issues must be decided at trial and not
upon a motion for judgment. The plaintiffs maintained that
all they were required to do under a Motion for Summary Judg-
ment was to show there was material issues of fact which re-
quired a trial. The balance of their brief examined the
factual issues remaining to be decided: sewage problems,
school overcrowding, and noise pollution at Lang ley ArB;
failure of the amended EIA to consider fully mitigation of
known adverse environmental effects of the reorganization;
erroneous information contained in the amended El A on the
impact of the reduction of the Colorado Springs school sys-
tem; and the questionable accuracy of the cost estimates of
altering Peterson AFE to accommodate Aerospace Defense Center
personnel. The plaintiffs concluded denial of defendant's
Motion cf Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment was approp-
riate,™
Despite these arguments, Air Force attorneys re-
mained convinced the amended assessment answered the plain-
tiffs brief. The assessment examined the plaintiffs' argu-
ments one by one and found no material issues of fact to
prevent the court from a judgment^in favor of the defend-
ants. The government concluded:??
There are no issues of material fact remaining,
only differences of opinions. The sole issue
remaining is to determine whether the Air Force
was reasonable in arriving at its negative
determination. It has been shown by the facts
that have been un:ontraverted by the plaintiffs
that the determination was based upon a thorough
analysis indepth factual research, and clear
reasoning. The amended environmental impact
assessment did render plaintiffs' complaint moot
and did address all deficiencies and supplied
the necessary decision making documents to enable
this Court to adjudge the reasonableness of the
negative determination. Therefore, it is re-
quested motion to dismiss or in the alternative
for Summary Judgment be granted.
Judge Finesilver set 24 August as the trial date to
hear arguments on the case. 78 As that date neared, however,
there were reports the plaintiffs were finding it increasing-
ly difficult to pay their legal fees. On 20 August one of
their spokesmen denied the suit would be dropped, 79 but next
day came an announcement that the parties had filed a joint
motion for dismissal of the suit, and that Judge Finesilver
had signed it, thereby lifting the preliminary injunction
issued 23 May. 80 A trial on the merits- of the case never
occurred because the plaintiffs were already about $15,000
in debt and could not raise the additional funds needed." 1
The suit h'illctt v. Brown delayed Air Force imple-
mentation of the reorganization 1 for about three months {25
May until 21 August). Personnel transfers which normally
would have taken place during the traditional summer sieving
season were delayed by the injunction, and morale problems,
if not personal hardship, resulted. The delay also permitted
soje highly skilled and scarce personnel resources intended
for SAC. TAC, and the new Aerospace Defense Center to he
lost to other assignments. It was perhaps natural that the
frustration of this hiatus, coming on .top of the moral drain-
ing experience of two years of reorganization study, caused
some to focus blame on the 10 civilians who brought the suit.
But the Air Force should bear a share of that responsibility.
In assessing the environmental aspects of the proposed action,
it had available for reference the experience of past reor-
ganizations and base closures (for example, the long-delayed
move of AFCS from Richards-Gebaur AFB to Scott AFB), events
which although different in many particulars from the action
contemplated, nevertheless collectively urged caution and a
conservative approach to meeting the requirements of nation*
al environmental policy. ADCOM might have performed ?. use-
ful role, perhaps as the "devil's advocate," in constructing
the strongest possible assessment. As it turned out, ths
command was not given an opportunity to help prepare the
document, but individuals employed there were encouraged by
the weaknesses they found in' it to challenge the action in
court. The court agreed the Air Force assessment was incom-
plete enough to justify postponement of the reorganization,
but a trial test never came because the plaintiffs dropped
their suit when they could no longer pay their legal fees.
Neither side gained much satisfaction from this brief legal
excursion. The plaintiffs incurred considerable debt but de-
layed the reorganization only three months. The injunction's
delay did not help Colorado Congressmen in their efforts to
explore the consequences of the closure of ADCOM in FY-80
budget hearings, since the issue received only superficial ex»
amination there, and sll that was going to be said on the set-
ter had been said by early May. The Air Force had to expend
additional effort to rewrite its assessment, and the effect
of delays in personnel transfers and organizational changes
has been mentioned. The prevailing opinion of Headquarters
ADCOM' s military and civilian persoanel regarding the law
suit, whether they sympathised with the action or not, seemed
to be that it could not cancel out the reorganization, only
postpone it. During the injunction period they became in-
creasingly anxious for an end to the stalemate so that they
could make the necessary adjustments in their lives and get
on with the future. Few greeted Kith disappointment the USAF
announcement en 25 August that on I September the ADCOM
reorganization would begin. 32
Dismantlement of the Major Mr^mandjBQCW . (U) Upon
public announcement or the r^o^ganuEtlchT 'ITF'Force planning
concentrated on four principal actions necessary to accomplish
the change: (1) transfer to TAC, AFCS-, and SAC parts of
ADCQM's isission, personnel resources, systems, units, and bases;
(2) establishment of a new management headquarters called Aero-
space Defense Center from residual ADCOM headquarters personnel;
(3) disestablishment of the msjor air command ADCOM; and (4)
vacating the Chidiaw Building and movement of the new ADC
headquarters to Peterson AFB.
The first action was to transiei the larger part of
ADCCM's manpower and units to TAC and AFCS, TAC would acquire
16.657 manpower spaces, 1G aajor units, and four bases. The
Communications Sen-ice would gain 1,696 spaces, two units, and
the communications-electronics functions of many other former
ADCOM units the greater part of which would $o to TAC and SAC. 53
The TAC DCS Plans wrote the ADCOM Vice Commander in early May
that General Creech (the TAC commander) wished to accomplish
the change in a "smooth, orderly, and efficient" way. Con-
sequently, TAC expected to make no major changes in the
manner in which business was being done, and would try to
minimize any personal hardship which sight arise as a result
of the reorganization. TAC's plan for assuming its new re-
sponsibilities included establishing a small cadre of per-
sonnel in Colorado Springs in June. It would be headed by
Major General John L. Piotrowski, then commander of the S52d
Airborne Warning and Control Wing, Tinker AFB. He would as-
sise the title of TAC Deputy Comoander for Air Defense (ADTAC).
Between October 1979 and June 1980 TAC would gradually trans-
ition responsibility for the air defense jaission froE Colorado
Springs to Langley bv incremental Hovement of personnel and
their integration into the TAC staff. s " ADCOM welcoiaed this
scans of transitioning responsibility for the atmospheric
defense mission, 8 $ but it had trcuble with the split dates
of the transfer. In late May General Hill attempted to get
TAC and AFCS to agree to postpone their parts of the change-
over until I October, the date of the SAC transfer. He
reasoned that since personnel shortages existed in certain
critical AFSCs, if the quantity of personnel requested by
TAC and AFCS were transferred on I July, not enough would be
left over to support SAC'S requirements on 1 October and the
continuing needs of CINCN05AD. If all transfer? took place
1 October, a more orderly transition tvould be possible, and
the Military Personnel Center would have more tine to real-
locate personnel from its worldwide pool.^ TAC answered
it saw no reason to delay things since personnel allocations
could be managed. It was concerned that any later date would
drag out the transfer and result in more personnel turbulence. ^
AFCS noted the referenced personnel problems had little ef-
fect on its plans, and said it could support either date. $3
Since ADCOM found itself unsupported on the change of dates,
1 July remained a valid planning date into early June. An
advance party of TAC personnel arrived at ADCOM on 4 June to
set up the ADTAC office, but it had to depart again late in
the month when court delays extended the moritorium on actions
into July. 89
In late July, reorganiiation 3ction officers met
with Hq USAF planners in the Pentagon to examine a range of
reorganization issues. New milestones agreed upon called
for assets going to TAC and AFCS to be transferred on
26 Air Division, less the
2 Coramuni cat ions Sq
5 Defense Space Communications Sq
7 Missile Warning Sq
46 Flying Training Sq Peterson AFB, CO
42S Munitions Support Sq Colorado Springs, ZO
3g$es
Duluth IAP, ffii
Kingsiey Field, OR
Hancock Field, XY
Tyndsll AFB, FL
The Air Force's residual presence at Otis AFB, MA
Those units not transferred to TAG ("less the" etc. above}
were missile warning and space surveillance organisations
destined for assignment to SAC. Pending that action, they
were, on 1 October, assigned tesoorarily to Headquarters
ADCOH.95
Also on 1 October, the Air Force CoBmuni cat ions
Service gained two ADCOM units, the 4? COifoiiuai cat ions Squad:
ron and the 4754 Radar Evaluation Squadron (546 manpower
spaces}. 5 ^ 1
SAC also began its phased acquisition of ADCOM
assets on 1 October by assuming command of Peterson AFB and
the following units: Hq 46 Aerospace Defense Sq (less the 46
Flying Training Sq, the 504 Air Force Band, and the 47 Com*
rcuniutions Sq), the 4602 Computer Services Sq, and the 4614
Contracting Sq.97 In total, SAC was slated to receive 3, $65
manpower spaces, IS major missile warning and space surveil-
lance units, and, it addition to Peterson, two bases in
Greenland (Thule and Sondrestrom.}^
Planning for the transfer of resource management
functions for ADCOM missile warning and space surveillance
units to SAC had called for a gradual acceptance of responsi-
bility by that coraiaand beyond the first quarter of FY-80, as
personnel with the required skills were acquired. SAC ac-
knowledged in early October, however, that its new Director-
ate of Space and Missile Warning Systems (SX), DCS/Operations,
would be slow in building up because of shortages in critical
AFSCs related to space. Also, having gained what it called
"... some real world visibility into the transition prob-
lem." SAC agreed that ADCOM would no longer have sufficient
personnel beyond 1 January 1980 to support a phased transi-
tion or SAC gained assets. SAC therefore proposed a com-
plete transfer of regaining ADCOM aanagement responsibilities
on 1 December (with the exception of the 10th Aerospace Defense
Squadron which it would take over on 1 November). Since SAC/
SX would not be able to manage those responsibilities by that
tiise, the liaison office in Colorado Springs would assume
that function in the interim, being augmented by fonaer ADCOM
personnel eventually destined for assignment to Offutt and
SX." ADCOM agreed to the SAC proposal. 1M
v On 1 December the following units were reassigned
Unit
2 Cona Squadron
5 Defense Space Comm Sq
6 Missile Warning Sq
7 Missile Warning Sq
'12 Missile Warning Group
13 Missile Naming Sq
14 Missile Warning Sq
16 Surveillance Sq
20 Missile Warning Sq
4 684 Air Base Grouo
Location
Buckley AGB, CO
Koomera ASM, Australia
Otis AFB, MA
Beale AFB, CA
Thule AFB, Greenland
Clear MB 1 , Alaska
MacDill AFB, FL
Shemya AFB, Alaska
Eglin AFB, FL
Sondrestrom AB, Greenland
Upon transfer of responsibility for the day-to-
day management of aerospace defense systems and the greater
part of its units and personnel, ADCOM for all practical
purposes ceased to function as a major comtaand, although it
continued to exist officially throughout the rest of 1979.
Formation of Aerospace Defen s e Center ,
Although the "Greenbook" proposal" of"" January 1978 determined
a major command management headquarters was no longer nec-
essary to support the aerospace defense mission, it did
recoiutnertd a small staff of about 300 be retained in Colorado
Springs to "... be the administrative and resource man-
agement organization for organizing, training, and equipping
Air Force personnel supporting K0RAD/ADC0J!/Specifiec7 and
NCOC functions ..." Since, as the study emphasized, it
was critical "... to preserve the authority and influence
. of CINCNGRAD in the performance of his mission, to assure he
is provided adequate, trained forces, and to maintain a
responsive command and control structure downwards for the
forces and upwards to the Canadian and U.S. military and
political authorities, "101 it seeded the new raanagesent
element would inherit many of the responsibilities of the
old major command. Upon close examination of the proposal,
however, the ADCOM staff was not completely satisfied CINC-
NORAD's authority and influence in joint and service matters
would be preserved.^- The JCS saw some "ambiguities" in
the study's distinctions between what would continue to be
CINCSORAD responsibilities and what role CINCSAC would play
with regard to command and management of space and missile'
warning resources. SAC was to get technical management
of Automatic Data Processing resources, but N'ORAD would main-
tain configuration management control. The JCS asked:
"How, for example, will sensor management be separated from
ADP management? Within ADP, how will hardware and software
be separated? Or, within software, how will technical man-
agement be separated from configuration management?"^'
These questions and other considerations presuaded the com-
mands concerned to meet in Colorado Springs in early 1978
to review their plans for implementing the reorganization. 10- '
Subsequently, General Hill reported to the JCS that he was
satisfied he could do the job:^
The proposed reorganisation plan does not
diminish my combined/specified operational com-
mand authority as CINCNQRAD/CINCAD . . ,
• . . There is no change to my current
authority and responsibilities for the NCOC,
its operational centers and associated ADP
hardware and software. At the sensor sites,
NORAD/ADCOM would maintain configuration manage-
ment over the operational software for the
sensor systems. Technical management, ["J e.g.,
implementation of approved software changes and
day-to-day maintenance of sensor software and
hardware, would be provided by site personnel
under the command of SAC. The NORAD/ADCOM
staff would retain the management structure ex*
pertise and approval authority for changes to
software programs and associated hardware speci-
fications relating to sensor systems supporting
the CISCNORAD/CINCAD operational mission. Opera*
tional control and tasking over all elements of
field sensors needed to support the space sur-
veillance and missile warning/attack assessment
missions win continue to be exercised through
the MCOC operational centers which remain under
ay full control. This retains the existing
command and control structure through which I
currently carry out my assigned combined and
specified command responsibilities. This arrange-
ment is essentially unchanged from the manner in
which end-tc-end operational control of ADP
hardware and software is currently managed.
In its presentations of the reorganization
plan to the JCS and Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Air Force emphasized the action represented only a change in
the way the Air Force would manage day-to-day the resources
it contributed to the aerospace defense mission. CINCN'ORAD's
* r " '- Defined as the user stating requirements, evalu-
ation test plans and results, and maintaining overall cog-
nizance of configuration control actions to include software
documentation standards.
authority, influence, and control would be preserved.
In late November 1978, when Air Staff representatives and
those of the commands concerned met to re-examine the re*
organization study, and to begin planning to implement its
proposals, program advocacy was described as resolved as
the result of a general officer agreement. Yet, within
the month, differences which arose between the SAC and
ADCOM staffs over future management of ADP software gave
ample evidence it had not been. 106 At the Second Combined
Air Defense Reorganization Planning Conference held in ear-
ly January 1979, the two commands remained at odds over
advocacy. ADCOM found unacceptable the wording of a SAC
draft letter of agreement which defined configuration
management and technical management, and would not agree
to transfer to SAC certain ADCOM Plans and Operations
functions. ^7
v . . . , As work began in February 1979 on pro-
gramming clans to implement the reorganization, the future
role CIN'CN'ORAD/CIN'CAD/COM AFENA would play in stating re-
quirements and otherwise advocating his mission needs to
Hq USAF remained the major issue between ADCOM and SAC and
TAC. General Hill orovided the following as policy for a
Flans stafi paper on the subject: "... AFENA (CINC-
NORAD/CINCAD) is primary (possibly even sole) advocate*
Requirements, configuration control (end-to-end), inspec-
tion and evaluation, training standards, etc remain. SAC
and TAC are supporting and supporting only, "^8 The
CIN'CNORAD wrote General Allen that it seemed the relation-
ships between the future resource managers- of aerospace
systems and the operator of those systems 'were still not
well understood. He referred to a recent attempt to ex-
plain the workings of the post-reorganization NORAB/CIN'CAD/
AFENA to the Canadians,* as one producing "enduring con-
fusion." The e.xolanation therein of future parallel svstems
advocacy, wherein SAC, TAC AFCS and ADC would share ad-
vocacy responsibility but CINCN'ORAD would continue to be
the principal advocate for strategic aerospace defense
requirements, seemed ambiguous at best. General Hill re-
■ * L General Hill was referring to a State Depart-
ment message to the American Embassy, Ottawa, 20/2143Z Dec
78 (Doc "1, Chap I, Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78).
marked, "... we apparently are having to create awkward,
poorly understood mechanisms and relationships ..." to
make the reorganization work. Pessimistically, he predicted
this uncertainty could result in the SAC and TAC staffs dom-
inating the relatively small AFENA staff and eventually
rendering it ineffective. The consequence would be the
eventual disestablishment of HOHAfl.109
DCS/Plans direction to the staff for use in pre-
paring the programming plan reflected CINCNORAD's strong be-
lief that his headquarters should be the focal point for the
Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) actions
(e.g., development of doctrine and concepts, mission area
analysis, Program Objective Memorandum (POM) actions, build*
ing force documents, and long range planning) as they con-
cerned the strategic defense area. 1 }' Consequently, the
March 1979 draft of ADCOM PPlan 79-'l contained a detailed «'
discussion of CINCNORAD's future advocacy responsibilities
and interaction with those commands responsible for resource
management. 111 Since in some particulars this policy con-
flicted with SAC and TAC perceptions as to what their future
responsibilities would be, coordination of PPlans was delayed.
SAC said its main disagreement with the ADCOM plan was that
although SAC would be assigned the resources and major com-
mand responsibility for them, the plan indicated AFENA would
retain them. This would mean a duplication, it said, of
both management functions and personnel requirements. 11 ^
ADCOM replied- that since CINCNORAD/CINCAD would continue to
have operational responsibility for aerospace defense forces
in the post reorganization period, AFENA would develop re-
quirements and work with SAC, TAC, and AFCS to expand upon
and complete such documents as Statements of Operational
Need (S0N1 and Required Operational Capability Statements
(R0CS). 11j Headquarters ilSAF took note of these conflicts
and advised that the 25 series regulations (Organization
and Mission - Field) and memorandums of agreement, and not
the Programming Plans, were the proper places to resolve
them. Specifically, "Mission directives should clearly
define PPBS /Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System/
and operational requirements advocacy responsibilities and
the inter-command relationships necessary to carry out
these responsibilities. " llJ !
Advocacy emerged as a "key consideration"
in a zero-based review directed by the Secretary of the Air
Force in February 1979 to verify the validity of the reor-
ganization's objectives. The Air Staff examined the division
of responsibilities for PPBS and the advocacy for future sys-
tems requirements and concluded no change would be made in
CINCNORAD/ClNCAD's access for advocacy purposes. Also, as
the commander of the Air Force element in Colorado Springs,
CINCNGRAD/CINCAD would continue to advocate USAF air defense
and surveillance/warning operational doctrine and requirements
to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff.
Furthermore: "This proposed headquarters element would re-
main responsible for Air Force planning, programming and bud-
geting actions affecting USAF resources dedicated to CINC-
NORAD/CINCAD in the Colorado Springs area and for control
over space surveillance/missile warning AQP configuration
management." SAC, TAC, and AFCS would work closely with the
element "... to provide parallel systems advocacy through
PPBS actions associated with their specific resource manage-
ment responsibilities. "1^
. The zero-based review did not, however,
quiet disagreement over AFEMA's role in future dealings with
the Air Staff on matters of mission area analysis, acquisi-
tion, and general PPSS activities. ADCOM learned in late
March that SAC and TAC had advised the Air Staff that ADCOM 1 s
advocacy responsibilities, as outlined in its PPlan and its
draft of the 20-4 regulation (headquarters organization and
responsibilities) were overstated and contrary to Greenbook
guidance, H6 Anxious that his position be clear, General
Hill wrote General Allen about this problem", which he had
thought previously resolved, saying that although future
strategic defense matters would require continuing and close
coordination between the operator and systems managers,
AFENA should be the one primary focal point for future
systems advocacy to the Air Staff.H? The SAC commander,
General Ellis, also wrote General Allen at this time, but
with a different view. He saw a much more limited role for
the AFEN'A staff than the one envisioned by General Hill,
While he agreed that' a "... clear definition of this di-
vision of responsibilities /Between AFENA and SAC, TAC, and
AFCSJ was fundamental to smooth and efficient reorganiza-
tion," and toward that end it was important to note that
C I NC AD as a specified commander had the obligation to advo-
cate his requirements through the JCS to the SecDef, the
CINCSAC also observed that since the major command ADCOM was
to be disestablished it became the responsibility of SAC,
TAG, and AFCS commanders to process CIMCAD requirements
through Air Force channels. Such an arrangement would, ac-
cording to General Ellis, parallel the USAFE/PACAF/TAC re-
lationship wherein TAC represented the theater combat com-
mands in program advocacy within the Air Staff, * 18 NORAD
felt compelled to comment to USAF on the Ellis letter in
order " .' . . to add clarity to the determination of post-
reorganization responsibilities . . ." The Vice Commander
in Chief, Major General Warren C. Moore, noted that speci-
fied commanders had been successful in the past because they-
had been at the same time major air commanders and thus re-
source managers. They had therefore been able to promote
their programs to Headquarters USAF, the prime mover in the
allocation of resources. (The JCS had little impact on this
process, and traditionally specified CINCs had preferred to
work through service channels.} He said there was no pre-
cedent for believing it was desirable to have a resource
manager who was not at the same time the specified commander
process the specified commander's requirements through the
Air Staff. Although CINCAD would cease to be a major air
commander after the reorganization, he would command a ser-
vice headquarters element; and it was his belief that while
the relationship between the force suppliers (SAC and TAC)
and the force employer (ADCOM-specified) should be a "close
and interdependent partnership," responsibility to determine
and advocate operational requirements to the service head-
auarters should be delegated to the headquarters element sup-
porting CINCAD. H5
General Allen responded to these concerns by say-
ing the Air Staff had been instructed to examine all aspects
of the assignment of responsibilities for air defense and
surveillance/warning resources, including the important ques-
tion of advocacy, and an intercommand meeting would be held
later "... to insure full agreement and understanding re-
garding organizational responsibilities. "120 That review
was not completed until early June, however, and previous
decisions regarding overall division of responsibilities
were confirmed. The Vice Chief of Staff provided additional
guidance on 9 1 July: 121
a. Aerospace Defense Center (ADC) (formerly
AFENA) , will be an Air Force unit with its commander
(COMADC) reporting directly to CSAF. The ADC
mission will be to provide Air Force staff support
to NORAD/AECOM and to serve as the coordinating
authority for integrating Air Force activities in
the strategic aerospace defense mission area.
b. The Air Force is fully committed to support
the CINCAD/CINCNORAD mission. In this context, we
must insure that the operational commander continues
to have influence in resource allocation decisions.
This can be done by establishing a very close rela-
tionship between CINCAD/COMADC and each of the
supporting commands (TAC, SAC, and AFCS). This will
require that TAC, SAC, and AFCS headquarters activity
regarding strategic defense be closely linked with
that of ADCOM/ADC. Although there will be no changes
to the current operational chain of command for real-
time actions, we see TAC, SAC, and AFCS headquarters
being advised of CINCAD operational actions which
affect subordinate units in a way that facilitates
accomplishment of the operational mission. Being so
informed will allow the commanders of TAC, SAC, and
AFCS to provide enhanced support.
c. Provisions must be written into the 20/23
AF regulations to insure that CINCAD/COMADC can ini-
tiate requirements statements, and recommend priori-
ties for programs for use by the commanders of SAC,
TAC, and AFCS as the bases for resource management
actions in the PPBS /Planning, Programming, and
Budgeting System/ and in development and acquisition
of new systems. Establishing formal authority for
CINCAD/COMADC to review PPBS actions proposed by SAC,
TAC, and AFCS will insure that he continues to have
a voice in such matters.
To further clarify this guidance, Hq DSAF called a meeting for
25 July at the Pentagon. An Air Staff briefing set down in
some detail CSAF decisions regarding future missions, auth-
orities, responsibilities, and inter-organizational relation-
ships of the several commands. 122 a s mentioned earlier, PPlans
and regulations were reworked accordingly and prepared for final
publication.
Advocacy responsibility translated into m?npower re-
quirements. A strong advocacy role for CIKCWRAD/CINCAD/
Commander ADC presupposed a residual management headquarters
of sufficient she and with the requisite staff expertise to
support his m'^sion. The acquisition of new responsibilities
for day-tc-ddy management of aerospace defense systems also
encouraged rhe gaining commands to seek the best possible man-
ning situation, both in numbers and in specific skills, in
the post-reorganization period. Few difficulties were anti-
cipated in redistributing the bulk of ACCOM's manpower assets
in the field. Individuals would remain in place and merely
change their patch on transfer day. Management headquarters
manpower requirements presented greater difficulty since new
unit manning documents had to be constructed. The plan was
for headquarters staff specialists—military and civilian--
to accompany functions transferred to the gaining commands.
They would be assigned temporarily to liaison offices (in the
cases of SAC and TAG) in anticipation of eventually moving to
Lang ley and Offutt AFBs. The greatej part of these transfers,
although they would bring some personal hardship to individu-
als, were negotiated between the commands concerned without
a great deal of difficulty. The reallocation of some spe-
cialized and chronically undermanned skills (e.g. , pilots,
navigators, space systems, computer systems, and weapons
controllers) was more contentious, since ADCOM's resources
were not sufficient to fulfill both the continuing require-
ments of the ADC headquarters and the new requirements of
SAC, TAC, and AFCS.
To begin the redistribution process, each command
a unit manning docum ent based on requirements gen-
I by new mission responsibilities, ; ADCOM constructed
one for ADC, and "upon receiving like documents from SAC, TAC,
and AFCS, it made tentative selections for transfer of per-
sonnel to those commands and identified surplus personnel
(reorganisation "savings"). The ADCOM staff's reaction upon
examining these documents was that their requirements ex*
ceeded ADCOM's resources. 1 ^ The /\i T F 0rce Military Per-
sonnel Center (AFMPC) found from preliminary work with major
command documents that shortages would probably exist in some
officer career fields. 124 j n a meeting called by MFC in the
middle of May, Manpower and Personnel representatives from
the several commands confirmed several problems handicapped
completion of manpower documents; shortages of personnel
(increased authorisations in some already undermanned AFSCs) ;
equitable distribution of personnel, or, more specifically,
the equitable distribution of shortages; future ADC manning
{the size of the new headquarters and whether or not it should
be manned on a priority basis had not been determined); and
the conflict over assignment of individuals (in some cases all
four commands wanted the same individual) .125 Command rep-
p?sentatives had trouble with AFHPC's announced policy of
equitable distribution of existing resources (largely AD-
COM* a) in terms of numbers, expertise, and quality. They
viewed it as an unrealistic course which could impact un-
favorably on mission accomplishment. AFMPC said that in the
absence of Hq USAF r>Tiority manning guidance, it could only
proceed on the basis of equibility, and its tentative manning
plan had been built on that premise. 126 When briefed on the
meeting, General Hill also seemed to have doubts about how
workable the share-alike plan would be. He reminded his
staff that the reorganization had been sold on the basis of
soecific manpower savings. Those spaces remaining after the
cut were to be used to man the new ADC headquarters and to
satisfy new requirements of the gaining commands. Those re-
quirements should not exceed the spaces available. Hg wanted
ADC to gain the best manning situation possible so as to in-
sure no degradation of the mission. The CIN'C observed that
if it came about that the requirements of the gaining com-
mands exceeded the number of spaces made available in the
Greenbook, the difference would have to be filled from other
resources. 127 This guidance was followed in ADCOM's response
to AF'iPC's canning plan: The command did not concur in those
actions it believed would adversely affect mission accomplish-
ment. It also believed that the new headquarters should be-
gin its operations from the most favorable manning situation
possible, since it would no longer be able to draw upon ex-
pertise in field units. 128
The January 1978 Greenbook established the
total Air Force manpower authorisations for the residual head»
quarters, the Air Defense Combat Operations Staff (ADCOS) in
Cheyenne Mountain, and several operating locations and detach-
ments at 1,572 spaces. The Air Staff subsequently agreed to
add 55 more in consideration of new workloads added since the
study was published, bringing the total to 1,625. 129 ADCOM's
analysis of future needs indicated a minimum requirement for
1,677 spaces (to man the new management headquarters, the
Cheyenne Mountain Complex, and the 425 Munitions Maintenance
Squadron). 130 This -left a difference of 52 spaces between
what Air Force' had approved and what ADCOM wanted, Subse-
quently, ADCOM adjusted its requirement downward, to 1,575,
when it was decided the 425 MUNS5 {104 spaces) would be trans-
ferred to TAC.131 An early February 1979 request to USAF
for an additional 52 soaces brought the CSAF's reply that
CTNCMORAD should examine the 1,521 spaces then provided with
a view toward decreasing that number, since Air Force man-
power requirements for the new headquarters seemed to be
"somewhat overstated. "132 General Hill later reported that
ADCOM had looked at several ways to restructure the new head-
quarters to save manpower, but it had always come up several
spaces short of the 1,573 ceiling .133 He remained convinced
any lower manning would impact adversely on vital functions
and responsibilities. Air Force, however, refused to hudge
from the 1,521 figure. 134 Out of appeals, ADCOM had no re-
course but to reduce the new headquarters. Notices went
out to the staff on 24 July that the spaces had been removed
from the Aerospace Defense Center UDL.135
The issue of ADC manning settled, at the 25-27
July meeting at Hq USAF, the commands were told to review
and revalidate their requirements and send them to USAF by
the middle of August, so that by early September the USAF
validation could be in the hands of AFMPC. Command repre-
sentatives were told that Air Staff" functional managers would
henceforth prioritise critical AFSCs and arbitrate on the
distribution of ACCOM's personnel assets if requirements
shortfalls arose. i56 General Hill thought it was not" the
business of Air Staff functional managers to decide what
he as a specified and binational commander needed to fulfill
his operational mission. 137 Subsequent efforts by the Air
Staff only increased his concern and inspired a message to
the Vice Chief of Stiff about the process of realigning re-
quirements without due consideration of operational require-
ments and the involvement of commands responsible for carry
ing out the reorganization. General Hill believed ADCOM and
not the Air Staff should serve as the "honest broker" for the
allocation of limited critical skills, because ClNCAD's con-
cern was for the operational mission, and he could be expect-
ed to do his best to insure'SAC, TAC, and AFCS were effec-
tively manned to carry out their aerospace defense management
functions. 138 while the idea of CINCAD as "honest broker"
did not catch on, he was assured the "... reorganization
of ADCOM assets will be accomplished with no mission degrada-
tion." The Vice Chief of Staff called a 17 September meeting
at Headquarters USAF (instead of AFMPC} in which it was hoped
the manning .issued could finally be settled so as not to delay
other reorganization actions. 139 Headquarters USAF direction
to AFMPC prior to the meeting was that in the critical pilot
(14XX), navigator (22XX), weapons controller (17XX), and
space systems (20XX) fields equitable manning would be made
first using ADCOM resources, and then MPC should try to in-
crease the panning percentage using other resources to bring
vt up to 80 percent if possible. ^ d The meeting was success-
ful, and the AFK?C project officer subsequently reported a
distribution process had beer, agreed upon by all, to include
the Batching of people to spaces. Ml
Henceforth the aerospace defense mission area
would b? the responsibility of CINCNORAD/CINCAD/CGMADC, as
the operator, arid COMTAC, COMSAC, and COMAFCS as resource
asnagers. Organization and mission regulations for the four,
put into find fars in the late July Pentagon meeting, were
?:•!• st the printers at the end of the year, but nevertheless
were in force unofficially when on 1 October and 1 December
transfers of responsibilities took place. AFR 25-9, "Organi-
:stior. ind Mission - Field, Aerospace Defense Center (ADC),"
described the responsibilities of the'new headquarters, its
support of the binational MORAD and joint CINCAD inissions,
and its relationshios with the three comaands exercising re-
source aaftsgeBent. " CIKQfORAD/CINCAD continued to exercise
operational control over all U.S. and Canadian forces assigned.
As the overall advocate for the strategic defense mission of
the JCS, he would identify overall mission area needs. His
command authority would enter SAC, TAC, and AFCS units at the
field headquarters and unit level; he would have no command
authority over COMTAC, COMSAC, or COMAFCS* CINCNORAD/CINCAD
would participate in the development and acquisition of his
command and control system, and direct its operation. He would
also receive from resource managers information on significant
changes in logistical support and basing alignment which he
would use to exoress his views and have them considered before
a final decision was made. The Center supporting CINCNORAD/
CINCAD would be a direct reporting unit to CSAF and serve as
the Air Force field with coordinating authority for the inte-
gration, of Air Force activities in the strategic aerospace
mission area. It would have the authority to require consul-
tation between the resource managers, but not to compel agree-
ment. CSAF retained this prerogative. COMADC would translate
CINCAD 1 s mission area needs into program requirements and
transmit them to the resource managers for inclusion in the
PPBS cycle. COMADC would review resource manager recommenda-
tions when they bore on the budget, and he had direct access to
CSAF should he believe ADC priorities were being neglected.
The reorganization plan called for the new head-
quarters to be moved from the Chidlaw Building to Peterson AFB.
The lease on the downtown building would not be renewed, and
the Air Force would thereby save about a million dollars a
year in rent. Plans to accomplish the move were prepared by
the end of 1979, but funding problems (the substantial dif-
ference between ABC's estimate of what it needed for minor
repair and rehabilitation at Peterson and the amount the Air
Force would provide) threatened to delay the move beyond the
summer of 1980 goal.
Until the middle 1970s aerospace defense headquar-
ters functions in the Colorado Springs area were located on
Ent AFB and in the Chidlaw Building, a leased facility. Be-
ginning in FY- 71, and for 10 years thereafter, ABC, and later
ADCOH, submitted in the Military Construction Program (MCP) a
requirement for a new headquarters building at Peterson AFB.
It planned to consolidate there scattered staff elements and
then close its expensive downtown installations. The command
asked for a building to house about 2,000 people, but the
orice of 522 million caused it to be dropped perennially from
the MCP. By the end of 1976 ADCOH had closed Ent AFB and '
distributed those disposed throughout the Chidlaw Building,
Peterson AFB, and the Cheyenne Mountain complex. Now more
than ever, ADC0M looked to a new building at Peterson as the
solution of its future needs. General Daniel James, Jr.
submitted a requirement for a new NORAD/ADCQM building in the
FY* 79 MCP as his number one priority. It would cost $11.8
million and house 1,400 persons,^ 2
Headquarters USAF was also anxious that ADCOH conso-
lidate its activities at Peterson, but within existing facili-
ties. It was unlikely, Air. Force said, that the new head-
quarters project would be approved in the near future. One
"promising approach" suggested to solve the problem of rising
construction and rental costs was to vacate the Chidlaw and
Federal Buildings and move people into space made available in
Cheyenne Mountain and on Peterson by "compressing" functions
already theTe. Also, facilities not being used as adminis-
trative space' could be easily and economically converted to
such use. 145- General James replied that the feasibility of
such a recommendation had been studied repeatedly for several
years, but the answer always came out the same: The move was
not practical unless a new headquarters building was construct-
ed .* 44 In July 1976 General James counted for General Jones
the cost of" ADCOH remaining downtown past 1982: $180,000 a
year for rent of the Federal Building, $150,000 for trans-
portation, and S2 million rent for the Chidiaw Building.
He said a new building could be amoritized in six years based
on elimination of those costs , 1 ^
The nev headquarters remained ADCOM's number one
priority in construction in the FY-79 HCP, although further
refinement of the command's needs—based on a continued de-
cline in manpower--reduced the requirement to a 1,000-man
building costing about $10 million. General James noted that
if the structure could be built with FY-79 funds, it would be
available early 1981, two years before the lease on the Chid-
iaw Building had to be renewed, and the rent of Si Billion
could be saved. 1 " But once again the building dropped out of j
the budget. In early December 1978, one montlvprior to com-
pletion of the final draft air defense reorganization plan,
ADCOM updated its headquarters building requirement with a
request* in the FY-81 MCP for a 176,000 square foot building
for liOOO people costing $11. 4 million. 14 ' The Greenbook,
however, postulated a sizeable reduction in both ADCOM head-
quarters personnel and spaces at Peterson AFB supporting the
MAJCOM, and the movement of key intelligence and operations
personnel into Cheyenne Mountain. It said the Chidiaw Build-
ing could be vacated and the residual staff relocated to
buildings at Peterson AFB "with minimum turbulence and no sig-
nificant facility. : ienovations.J'*.lJJ'- . .»«. >- •*-«*• **.;
Responding to CSAF's call for surveys at the several
bases affected by the reorganization, and in order to deter-
mine what needed to be done in the way of facility modifica-
tion or new construction,!" ADCOM examined several options
involving new construction and relocation and renovation of
existing buildings at Peterson AFB. If a move into existing
facilities became necessary, Building 1470, housing Head-
quarters, 46 Aerospace Defense King, was the only suitable
facility, for the new -management headquarters. 150 But this
and other options involving renovation were costly
temporary expedients. Also, it would be uneconomical to
negotiate a new lease for the "Chidiaw Building. Only the net-
headquarters option offered the potential for savings over
the long term.151 In late April, ADCOM modified its FY-81
* The report also stated that bases gaining personnel
in the reorganization (at the time Tyndall, Offutt, tang-
ley, and Scott} would be able to absorb them within existing
facilities and total costs for minor renovation would not
exceed $500,000.
request for a new building at Peterson, reducing it in scope
to a seven million dollar, 100,000 square foot structure, to
house 600 people. 152
Such plans ran counter to the Air Force's deter-
mination that announced savings from the reorganisation remain
valid. ADCOM therefore found no support for a new building at
the Air Staff level. 153 A survey of Peterson facilities by an
Air Staff team on 1-3 June affirmed that although some minor
construction and building maintenance and repair work would be
needed to locate the residual ADCOM staff in the wing head-
quarters building, that facility was suitable and no new build-
.ing was. needed. 1 "..- The GAO, however, kept the issue alive fo'r '
^awhile longer .when it issued a report on 25 June, which stated
the Air Force was considering a half dozen options for bedding
down personnels at Peterson, Offutt, and langley AFBs, and the
cost could : be as much as $9.8 million.* 155 The Air Force. denied
it planned a new headquarters building at Peterson, 15 6 and an
affidavit to that effect was submitted by the Air FoTce Director
of Bngineering and Services in the civil suit Mllett v. Brown,
then in litigation. 157
With the new building now a dead issue, ADCOM began
.planning iu earnest' to move the approximately 600 personnel
J whid^w,oulAjiake 1 .up»tie»neK«MC-.headq
On Peterson AFB and to relocate the dispiaced"wiiig"to Building
335;158 Tentative space allocations for ADC staff agencies
were made and project documents for minor construction (P-341)
and maintenance prepared. When it had surveyed Peterson in
early June, the Air Staff team had estimated such -work would
cost about $500,000 (this ■was also the limit on the expenditure
of F-541 funds for which the Air Force had authority; projects
costing more had to be authorized and funded by Congress).
ADCOM's estimate of projects required at Peterson to beddown
ADC, sent to USAF IS October, were over twice that amount:
$1.36 million ($983,000 in construction and $382,000 in main-
'tenan.ce and repair). 15 ^ General Hill thought some of the first
year savings .to be realized from the reorganization should be
*""" $7.4 million for a new building at Peterson and re-
location of the printing plant there from the Chidlaw Building,
and $2.4 million for improvements to existing buildings at
Offutt and Langley AFBs.
reapplied to these projects, and he solicited the Chief of
Staff's support to provide the additional funds, WO The Air
Force Vice .Chief of Staff replied that the Air Force was
"tied to the previously established position" that the cost
of moving ADC headquarters to Peterson would be $500,000,
and that no new construction was required. He asked NORAD/
ADCOM to reduce the project to $500,000, doing only that work
critical to moving the headquarters to Peterson. A future
MCP project could then complete the reimovation of building
1470*161 At the end of the year the ADC civil engineer was
responding to this direction by scaling down facilities pro-.
■ jects which would constitute a new package to be sent to
Air Force early in 1980. 16z ; -.,.' ■ :; ;i.-vjwi^jij;, ..4.. ..J
Summary . (U) By the end of 1979 , 87 percent of all
the actions ..required by the reorganization programming plan
had been completed. Remaining to be done was official dis-
establishment of the major command ADCOM; completion of
personnel transfers in the spring and summer of 1980; the ,
move to TAC and SAC liaison offices back to langley and
Of f utt -AFBs ; and the move of ADC headquarters to Peterson
AFB. None of these seemed to present any problems, except
perhaps the move to Peterson. It was complicated by funding '
restrictions on the rehabilitation of facilities at the'base,;
»and^,the -possible. relocation-therei,py^SAC,v.the*basei , 5*'new-3^i«i(-*
owner, of 'new-missions which had not been considered in the
reorganization plan. It would likely be at least 1981 before
ADC could move to the base.
The Air Force decision to reorganize its aerospace
defense forces culminated a decade of decline in 'continental
air defense. Studies during tie middle of the decade recom- ;.,
mended disestablishment of the major, command and the redis- : :
tribution of its assets to other commands; but while cuts
continued to be made, the basic ADCOM organizational struc-
ture remained intact until Congressional pressure in late 1977
and early 1978 caused the Air Force to accept as a mandate the
closure of ADGOM-, Air Force Chief of Staff David Jones di-
rected the Air -Staff Greenbook study which detailed how to
accomplish the change. His sucessor, General Lew Allen, kept
to the objective of completing the reorganization as it was
.set down in the Greenbook and explained to the Congress and
the public. Both NORAD/ABCOM commanders during the reorgani-
zation era, Generals James and Hill, were unsuccessful with
proposals which would have altered the Air Force plan.
NORAD/ ADCOM (specified) /ADC, which retained operational
control of forces, and SAC and TAC, who gained responsi-
bility for resource management, differed on the division
of authority for future systems advocacy to higher head-
quarters. In the end, Hq USAF mediated. The redistribu- •
tion of ADCOM' s manpower, especially those critical AFSCs
in short supply, proved difficult, and all commands were
forced to accept shortages for at least the immediate
future.
. The closure of ADCOM aroused no organized public
opposition in Colorado Springs.' Community leaders were ;
confident the local economy was strong enough .'to accept the
loss with little or no long term effect. The Colorado Con-
gressional delegation examined the reorganization in sev-
eral committee hearings early in 1979, but found no support
among their colleagues for further examination or delay of
the action. The Air Force argument that the' change would
save dollars without affecting performance fit well the
general economy mood of the Congress. The only effective
opposition came from 10 ADCOM civilian employees. They
were successful in gaining a court injunction based on what
they claimed were inadequacies, in thejiir Force's environ-
"•mehtH"^ssessmentT'**fhis 'delayed action" for three months, '"'"
but since the plaintiffs ran out of money before a decisive
legal confrontation could take place, the validity of their
case was never tested. All major reorganization actions
were taken during the last three months of 1979, and with-
out discernible effect on the operational condition of the
various aerospace defense systems.
For good or ill, aerospace defense had been
reorganized. ' Even those who opposed this break with the
traditional concept of organization established in 1946 with
the formation of three CONUS combat commands (SAC, TAC, and
ABC) seemed confident Air Force people would be flexible
and adaptable enough to make the new organization work.
It also presented an opportunity to enhance the aerospace
defense mission area. CINCHORAD/CINCAD/Com ADC would
now work closely with the commanders of two large and in-
fluential commands in the promotion of systems moderniza-
tion at the service and joint levels. The new relationship
would call for close cooperation and interaction between the
several staffs. If agreement on priorities could be achieved
and sustained, the result Bight be an upturn in the funding
fortunes of aerospace defense.
Space Mission Organization Planning Study
How the Air Force should organize itself to
take on the increased responsibilities in space it expected
to acquire during the decade of the 1980s and beyond had been
studied with an increasing sense of urgency since at least
1974, and continued to be during 1979. A decision in August
: promised a sharper focus for research and development and :
mission operations in Air Force Systems Command, but it fell
short of providing the means for centralized management of
all Air Force responsibilities in space operations, a deci-
sion .'which ADCOH, for one, considered long overdue. 163
In September 1978 Secretary of the Air
Force John Stetson observed that because of evolving relation-
ships with KASA over management of the Space Shuttle, the Air
Force would need a stronger organization devoted to space ac-
tivities than it then possessed, and he asked the Air Force
to consider future space-organization options. 164 The Chief
»>of ' Staff ■,.establisheoVii»Air» Staff ^xecutive-Committee-com-* " ••
posed of Air Staff officers and officers from major, commands
with present or predicted responsibilities in space to prepare
a study to determine what action should be taken to respond to
the Secretary's request.* The study, entitled "Space Mission
Organization Planning Study" (SMOPS) was completed in Janu-
ary 1979. It offered a choice. (it made no recommendation) ■ ■
between a functional arrangement, which would continue the
present system of assigning responsibility for space systems
on a case-by-case basis, and a centralized one, which would
assign all assets to an existing command (SAC and AFSC) or
place them under either a new Space Command or a Space- Service
(under AFSC).. The Executive Committee also outlined the fol-
lowing Air Force objectives for space: The Air Force should
be the DOD executive agent for space, it should have opera-
tional control of the Shuttle for missions involving national
* fejor General B. K. Brown, DCS/0, represented
ADCOM with staff 'support from tt Col S. Beamer (XP) and Lt Col
J. B. Wilde (DO).
security, it should acquire combat capabilities in space,
and it should make the organizational changes needed to
facilitate achieving operational objectives. 165
Upon examination of the study, ADCOM
concluded it actually offered two SAC alternatives, two
AFSC alternatives, and a Space Command alternative. If the "
ADCOM Reorganization was a reality (and study rules had con-
sidered it such), then continuation of the functional status
quo (Alternative A) would be tantamount to SAC's acquisition
of the mission, since it acquired ADCOM missile 'naming and
space surveillance assets. Alternative B also assigned maj-
or space missions to SAC. Alternative C created a Space .'-.,_ t \
Command. Alternative D assigned operations-and^researchvandps*-^
developmentsto.AFSC. -Alternative B created- a,Space Service i'i-.
under AFSC. 1 ' 6 ' ADCOM strongly, favored creation<of a. Space ,*_■ ■ ';
Commands General Hill recommended to^Generai; Allen using
ADCOM space^and missile. warning, systems and personnel to "... .
create the aiew" organization (thus only half the Reqrganiza- •' .
tioii would ; be "accomplished) , and building. on that nucleus'
- by adding other Air Force space assets over time as they be-
came operational. 167 This recommendation was made prior to
the Air Force's final zero-based evaluation of the ADCOM
; Reorganization, and, theoretically at least, while it was
\ still negotiable. With the decision to proceed, however,
. '-.and the -March ^ublicamiounceaent'of"the«3Ct'ionf'the-'ADC0M J '''* aw
commander took a new position,' ' He told General Allen that
in a perfect world he would stick with the Space Command as
the best answer, but since it was probably infeasible po-
litically to form a new command so soon after getting rid of
one, the best solution seemed to be a variant of the Space
Service offered by Lieutenant General Thomas Stafford, DCS/
Research and Development, Hq USAF. It would give the Ser-"^' •
vice maj or 'command planning responsibilities and'dual-hat 5 '
the Vice CINCAD as its commander. This variant, General
Hill. said, provided "... a coherent organizational rela-
tionship between Service and specified command responsibili-
ties. "168 . Replies from other major commanders andsenior
Air Staff Officers showed a diversity of opinion about what
should be done and when, but they seemed generally agreed
that whether space went to an existing organization or to .
one newly formed, stronger centralized management was needed. 169
i Briefed on the alternatives for organiza-
tional change in early June, General Allen made no decision. Not
until early August did Secretary of the Air Force Dr. Han',
Mark announce a decision to realign space and missile re-
search, development, and test activities by deactivating, ef-
fective 1 October, AFSC's Space and Missile Systems Organi-
zation (SAMSO) and establishing two organizations--Ballistic
Missile Office (BMO) and Space Division (SD) -- from
its two former major subdivisions. The SD would continue
space activities formerly the responsibility of SAMSO and add
responsibilities for launch sites on the west and east coasts
formerly operated by Space and Missile Test Center (SAMTEC),
which would be deactivated. The Air Force said the change
reflected the increased importance of its space activities'
and would streamline organization and improve efficiency. 170
Certainly it fulfilled the widely felt need to do .something,.,
but it also had the effect of shelving the Space Mission and ■
Organization Planning Study. • If in limbo, however, it was .
not dead. Secretary Mark still maintained development of a
doctrine and organization for increased activity in space was ,
one of the Air Force's three most important priorities. 171 On
the eve of his retirement from the Air Force, in December '
1979, General Hill shared with General Allen his concerns'
about the future of the Air Force as it regarded the space
mission, and concluded "... that unless we make an explic-
it organizational decision which assigns to a single organi-
zation the Air Force responsibilities in space operations once
and for' all, we will be'faced with serious, negative, long ;.
"HerVlmpacts on~Yeso'urce management 'and'planning. "172 ■■■^■■•r='.V"-'
The Joint U. S. -Canadian Air gefense Study (JUSCADS)
'The growing obsolesence of early warning
systems protecting- North America against bomber attack, the
need to modernize them, and the expense of doing so were is-
sues of , increasing concern to the United States and Canada.
Experience gained in the joint program for acquisition of
Region Control Centers for the Joint Surveillance System (JSS),
and the -increasing austerity of defense budgets on both sides
of the border, encouraged the two nations to look for more
ways to share. the financial responsibilities of modernization.
In June 1976, 'representatives of the two nations, meeting as
the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD), agreed to hold
talks on how arrangements for cost sharing should be pursued.
A Joint Steering Group -.was subsequently formed to examine com-
■ mon points of departure; and by early 1977 a package approach
to system acquisition, in which each country would accept to-
tal management responsibility for specific joint systems as
the basis for equitable division of national responsibilities,
had been agreed upon. Further discussion was then postponed
pending completion by the U.S. of a study of the air breath-
ing threat and consequential decisions by Secretary of De-
fense Brown (Amended Program Decision Memorandum) . There-
after, talks resumed, and at the June 1978 PJBD meeting the
Canadian Steering Group Chairman reported a paper was hearing
completion which proposed financial sharing for certain sys-
tems in Canada and Alaska. 173
To this point, cost sharing had focused on programs
developed in large measure independently by the two nations,
and had been concerned primarily with modernizing current
equipment in existing locations. In a letter to U.S. Secre-
tary of Defense. Brown, on 10 May, 1978, however, ^Canadian Min- ? .
■ ister of Defence "Eam'ett-'Jr.Danson'noted that' by continuing in
'that direction "we run the-risk of investing large aiounts of
money in rebuilding a North American air defence system es-
sentially designed, to meet the Soviet threat., of the 1950s and
early 1960s, and that .part of it still in service." ■ Danson
urged a more in-depth study be undertaken of ~the potential air
breathing threat to North America in the 1980s and beyond,
and what advanced techniques might be available in that
period to meet it. 174 Asked to comment on this proposal by
General David Jones, Chairman of. the JCS, General Hill
concurred with Canada's premise that/miitiiaLiefense re-, ....;■■■
quirements should be 'considered in a'Nbrth American context, ^
and-ne-supported"any?-action"tha't"woul , d furtherMat precept'."" -
If a study was determined to be the."appropriate"course, NORAp .
would lend :its. full. support. 1? 5; .Secretary Brown replied to - .■
Danson on 29 June that the Air Defense Steering Group already
in existence should determine if further studies were required.
He emphasized, however, that if a joint effort were under-
taken, it should be completed, quickly so decisions could be
incorporated into defense planning as soon as possible; and ~
he said under no circumstances should the study unnecessarily
delay joint consideration of problems relating to current sys-
tems and their near-term improvement. *76
The Steering Group met on 28 September and -
confirmed tliat'a study was needed. 1/7 Subsequently, both the
U.S. and Canada prepared draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for
the study effort, and in early November these were used to pre-
pare a joint 'document-. In its final form, after coordination
at NORAD, the TOR stated the purpose of the Joint U.S. -Canada
Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) was: "To, define options, in terms
of cost and effectiveness, for a systems and programmatic plan
that would meet North American air defense needs from the
present through about the year 2000, and to identify potential
technological opportunities for joint U.S. -Canadian research
and development . "178 Requirements for defense against both
the bomber and cruise missile threat would be examined and con-
sidered in the context of North America. Two time periods--
the present to about 1985 and 198S to 200G--would be consid-
ered, and within each period the study would integrate systems
and programs into various architectures for a North American
air defense system. The study would be prepared by a joint
U.S. group of specialists from System Planning Corporation (a
U.S. "think tank" firm), other similarly oriented companies,
and U.S. and Canadian governmental agencies. Mr. E. C. Aid-
ridge, Vice President of System Planning Corporation, was
named the study. director, and Brig Gen (CF-Ret) J. J. Collins , L
its associate director.- An oversight Joint Working Group, co- ',$
chaired by Mr. George Bader (OSD/ISA) and Maj Gen (CF) Norman /
Trower, would follow the Study Group's efforts, provide di-
rection, and periodically report progress to the Joint Steer-
ing Group, The Steering Group, co-chaired by Mr. James Siena,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for ISA (European and
NATO Affairs), and Mr. John Anderson, Assistant Deputy Min-
ister (Policy), National Defence Headquarters, would provide ■
management guidance and periodically review the study's prog-
ress to ensure it met the objectives set down in the TOR. 179
While NORAD concurred in the joint TOR, -and was anxious to
lend its expertise to --the study in an advisory capacity,18G
it^like^e'gretarv^Brpwnj .hoped»there„ would, be no<-delays in ^w*-*
programs already approved. In a letter to Secretary Brown in
mid-October, General Hill spoke of "ominous signs that there were
those /JinnamedJ who would use the study as an excuse to delay
or defer even the most modest modernization and improvements
already approved or underway. "181.. ■ ■
■'""" The Study Group assembled in early 1979, and, .,
in the middle of February held its first full meeting, at
NORAD, to complete a plan for the report. 182 Progress reports
presented at a meeting in Ottawa later that month indicated
the study would make recommendations for minimum warning and
defense capabilities and then examine successive increasing
levels of capabil-ity .to a maximum level. The schedule' at this
point called for- a preliminary status report to be given the
Steering Group in early April, the initial report would be
sent out for review on 1 June, and the final report was to be
delivered 3 July. USAF Air Staff officers attending the Ot-
tawa meeting reportedly emphasized again the importance of no
delays. 183 A study progress report presented by the directors
to interested parties in the Pentagon, at NORAD, and in Ottawa,
in early April, indicated that although a good beginning had
been made, analysis of near term air defense enhancements
needed to be strengthened in order to provide a more sound
transition to future space based systems. U.S. Working Croup
members who heard a pre" iminary report briefing on 4 April
were concerned that not only was the idea of a leap-frog into
space inconsistent with the study's TOR, but also insufficient
consideration had been given to the effect such an approach
would have on Canadian participation, since that nation had
barely begun to formulate a national space policy. After hear-
ing the preliminary report on 10 April, 184 General Hill wrote
lieutenant General Richard t. Lawson, Director of Plans and
Policy (J-S), JCS, that he did not quarrel with the emphasis
being given space systems, only to the timing: "Discounting
that feature which had our action officers concerned—whether
■or not we should try to leap-frog to space-based radar--there v
is^no'-'doubtthat'the study will conclude in an emphatic way ; *
that'-space is where much of tomorrow's air defense job will
have to be done when technology permits. It is not a. question
of ii--only when'."185 Tentative conclusions reached by the
Study/Group, and briefed to NORAD," the Working Group, and the
Steering 'Group in late May and June, were little different in
substance from the preliminary results briefed in April. Op-
tions were presented for the near term to reduce operations
and support costs of the existing system, and emphasis was
placed on early initiation of research development testing and
evaluation for space surveillance. systems., .Those briefed con-
tinued to be concerned about the technical and budgetary risks '
-involved •in"'iliSv , ing"iMo , "spl'ce tob^rJon'^They wanted more at"-' '"
tention- given to bridging options involving enhanced ground
systems to make sure no- air' defense gap- was created 'in the late'
years of the century before space based systems were operation-
al. 186 The Canadian deputy CHCNORAD summed up NORAD's view:
"While space based systems offer potential for the future, in
our view they.- do not answer the threat we face in the 80s and
90s. More emphasis should be placed on how we can best meet *
our near and mid-term requirements. Therefore, we should plan
for grou,.d based systems to provide the long range tactical
warning hedge between the thseat of the 80s and 90s to the
turn of the century while at the same time continuing an
orderly R§D process towards bringing in a space based capa-
bility during the early part of the next century. "187
Given the circumstance that in June signif- '
leant study issues remained unresolved, it became clear that
the early July completion date for the final report' could not
be met. The Aldridge- Collins group requested, and was grant-
ed, a month's extension. This date proved also unrealistic,
however, as the study went through three drafts (10 July,
15 August, and 25 September). The NORAD staff provided ex-
tensive comments on the drafts, which showed substantial
improvement after the first one was judged unacceptable.!" 8
General Hill wrote the co-chairmen of the Joint Steering
Group in early October that he found the third ai.d final
draft report "an excellent starting point "for modernising the
North American aerospace defense posture," It identified the.
limitations of existing systems, documented the need for in-
cremental improvement, and provided various alternatives for
resolution of air defense problems through the remaining two
■ decades of the century, Although NORAD's preferred policy
alternative was Alternative IV* (described as survivable
forces for defense of strategic and major industrial targets
against large scale bomber attack following an ICBM attack),
"budgetary and political constraints made its acceptance un-
likely," and so the more prudent approach seemed:to be Al-
ternative III (nonsurvivable forces which would'. provider-
warning and characterization and a highly effective'-defense
of strategic and major industrial targets against .a small
bomber attack without a prior missile attack). - Upon examin-
ation of the various options presented for improving the ef-
ficiency of existing systems and using the resulting savings
to achieve the surveillance capability at longer ranges and
lower altitudes needed to meet the projected threat to the
year 2000, CINCNORAD believed the first step should be Op-
tion IB, followed by Option 2,189 These were described in
the JUSCAD report as follows:^ ■ •
-"-'• Option lB:« WbuM'remove the'interi'or'Pinerr'ee'lnJi'*''""'' '
northern tier JSS radars, remove alert sites 'along
the northern U..S. border, redeploy new Canadian - •. 7
interceptors in south-central Canada, operate ex-
isting types of U.S. interceptors, deploy new radars ■
near mid-Canada, and modernize the DEW line with suf-
ficient numbers of radars' to provide high-altitude
detection and warning (over 10,000 ft). This option,
by having radar coverage over most of Canada, would
(1) provide a virtual attrition system for bomber
attacks from the north attempting to fly under radar
coverage (Backfire would have a marginal capability
to attack North American targets using such north-
ern routes),"" (2)- provide an infrastructure to support
F Four yjlicy alternatives were developed to de-
scribe the range of mission priorities, design requirements,
and -capabilities which it was possible to derive from NORAD's
mission of air sovereignty, warning and defense.
AWACS operations in mid-Canada, and (3) provide a
capability to periodically enforce airspace sover-
eignty in selected areas of the Arctic Region (using
the intercept control capability that would exist
in the modernized DEW radars}. It would cost about
$17. 1 billion to implement over the 1980-2000 period
and save about 2,700 personnel over the current
system.
Option 2: Add long-range, all - altitude coverage
to Option 1 as soon as possible to meet the project-
ein Areat with_ the immediate procurement of Ot 'H-8/
gapfnie r radgrs. This option would (lj deploy
three~"dTH-!B'~rad"ar sites and a number of gapfiller
radars to the DEW line . , . and (2) modernize a $■
significant fraction (five squadrons) of the U.S.
interceptor force with current production (F-15
type) interceptors on a schedule consistent with
the introduction of OTH-B radars. The nunber of
gapfiller radars would depend on the variant of
Option 1 selected and the altitude of coverage
desired. Where all U.S. interceptor alert sites
are manned with F-4s and F-l06s in Option 1, every
other U.S. alert site (a total of 10) would be
equipped with F-ISs in this option to facilitate
long-range, over-ocean, all-altitude. operations.'
'. ■ A space_ sensor, would, be,. planned foj rf deplpvaent-in.« *--.,
""^'".'the i at g- j j_j)j}0 s ^ 3n( j Arctic interceptor operations
will be required against the projected threat" in
that period. This option' would add '$7.8 billion to
..the 20-year cost of Option 1, of which about $2
billion is required over the next five years, and add
about 1,000 more personnel to Option 1 (a reduction
of 2,000 from the current system).
Considering the technical risfcs involved, possible fiscal con-
straints, and competing defense priorities, CINCN0RAD be-
lieved it unlikely that a production decision on a space
based atmospheric sensor would be made before the 1990s; and
this left OTH .radar, an improved DEW Line, and a relocated
CAD1N (Continental Air Defense Integration North)/Pinetree
Line to provide the capabilities needed through the end of
the century. 191
On 26 October 1979 the U.S. -Canadian Air
Defense Steering Group accepted the JUSCADS, subject to the
inclusion of several final changes. Now, according to the
Group, each country must evaluate the study and begin
formulating an air defense policy .192 Upon hearing the final
study briefing on 8 November, General Hill remarked that the
study's strength was that it pointed out clearly the neces-
sity for both countries to formulate a mutually acceptable
air defense policy. 193 Asked by the JCS to offer his recom-
mendations, General Hill responded to General Jones that he
welcomed the opportunity, since "... the lack of a clear
policy has left this mission area open to such widespread
interpretation that realistic planning has become a difficult
and unproductive task. "194 NORAD's policy paper examined the
evolution of air defense policy from Secretary of Defense
McNamara to Secretary Brora and found a consistent lack of
interest in building an atmospheric defense against bombers,
the argument being that it would be wasteful to do so when
the nation "possessed no defense against ballistic missiles-
Force structure ^ decisions had been based on such official
statements, "-although strategic guidance from the JCS and
Canadian Defence -Staff regarding NORAD/ADCOM's responsibility
to defend North American airspace did not always take into
consideration!the ; 'resultant decline in forces. NORAD main-
tained "These anomalies between policy guidance, strategic
guidance, and programmatic action's . . ." had created a gulf
between strategic defense tasks assigned the command and its
ability to perform, produced a diversity of interpretations
about the mission area which had weakened force planning and
delayed modernization, reduced NORAD's effectiveness to a
^.limitedsability to exercise.sov.ereignty in-rNorthJuneritan'
airspace, eliminated the command's ability to deny "unchal-
lenged access" to intruders, and permitted the Soviets to ex-
ploit defense gaps using their existing bomber forces. Re-
cent U.S. and Canadian recognition of the need for a joint
policy for North American air defense on which to base future
systems acauisition had inspired the JUSCAD study. It had
concluded a mutually acceptable air defense policy must pre-
cede decisions regarding systems modernization, and several
policy alternatives and systems options were offered. Con-
sidering, the wide range of possible policy options available,
NORAD concluded that at a minimum both nations needed " . . .
a capability for enforcing collectively, the integrity of
North American airspace and for providing sufficient warning
of bomber /cruise missile attack to ensure the survivability
of United States strategic retaliatory capabilities." To
carry out this- mission,. NORAD said military forces "...
must have an inherent war-fighting capability to counter a
potential threat before it can reach its weapons release
point;" The size of these forces would be based on the re-
quirement to use the war-fighting. capabilities of dedicated
forces to enforce the integrity of North American airspace.
Such an "airspace 1 integrity enforcement system" would have
the following characteristics, according to NORAD; a capa-
bility to detect a potential bomber and cruise missile car-
rier attack on North America and to provide timely warning;
great enough range to permit identification and assessment of
the threat short of the weapons release time; a system 1 for em-'"
ploying augmentation forces in time of crisis; and growth po-
tential to counter a future increased cruise missile or bomber
threat. NORAD said its recommended air defense policy would
enable near term objectives to be maintained (especially it
would help solve the disparity between means and ends); and,
in the long term, it would facilitate exploitation of new
technologies for a future space based atmospheric detection
and warning system and directed energy weapons. 195 . . : _
) ". Some of NORAD's ideas were" used in. another"
policy paper, prepared by the JCS, which went to the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (ISA) in early Deceaber, The JCS
believed the JUSCADS had been useful to a better understand-
ing of present deficiencies in North American air defense,
and in identifying and evaluating various options for future
planning. Taking particular note that the existing system
could not provide warning and attack characterization of a
bomber and CTuise missile attack, the JCS emphasized the need
to " . . , possess the capability to provide the eJCA with ,
timely and .accurate tactical warning ar.d characterization of ._
a smal^J3omber^cpise,missile aJtack.on^s,trategica retaliatory-**
'forces"Tnd'/'o'F"tIie strategic $ elements' for directing the ' .
launch of these forces." The JCS believed the "modest, ded-
icated interceptor force" responsible for determining the
character of the attack, and augmented by general purpose
forces, would be capable of limiting damage by_ such attacks.
Peacetime control of airspace would be maintained by forces
deployed for tactical warning and attack characterization.
The JCS agreed that all future planning for tactical warning'^
airspace control, and air defense should be considered from a
North American perspective, and that Canada should be a full
partner in such endeavors. 196
i. .* While it contained some of NORAD's ideas, ' ■
the JCS papers placed emphasis not on enforcing the integrity
of U.S. airspace, but on warning and attack characterization.
NORAD DCS/Plans officers concluded this would call for an-
other assessment of the air breathing threat, a subject about
'which there had been diverse opinion in the past, and perhaps
again block modernization. It was expected the JCS policy
would be reflected first in the Secretary of Defense's Defense
Policy Guidance document, in January 1980, and later on in
the Consolidated Guidance document. In the meantime, Canada
«as also at work on a policy paper. The binational Steering
Group expected to meet in February 1980 to. discuss the next
step, a joint U.S. -Canada air defense policy. 197
Manpower
ADCOM/ADC Authorized and Assigne d Personnel
ADCQM was authorized 25,236 manpower spaces (3,278
officers, 17,794 airmen, and 4,164 civilians) on the Unit
Manning Document (UMD) on 30 June 1979. This was a decrease
of 1,136 spaces since the beginning of the year when 26,372
spaces were authorized (3,281 officers, 18,871 airmen, and
4,220 civilians). With the accomplishment on 1 October 1979
of the first phase of the reorganization, ADCOM authorized
manpower spaces dropped to 4,129 spaces (1,038 officers,
2,277 airien, and 814 civilians); and by the end of 1979, with
all major reorganization actions completed, only 1,578 nan-
power spaces were authorized ADCOM/ADC (598 officers, 691 air-
men, and 289 civilians). The total reduction during 1979 was
24>794 spaces or 94 percent. 198
The command was overmanned by 649 in airmen (18,871
authorized and 19,520 assigned) at the beginning of the year,
but, was short of both officers (3,281 authorized and 3,236
1 assigned) "and civilians''(4-,220-authorized -'and 3,927 assigned);**
By the end of 1979, the airman overage had dwindled to 83
(691 authorized and 774 assigned) . A modest officer overage
of 19 (598 authorized and 617 assigned) existed at this time
and in civilians ADC -was overmanned by 291 (289 authorized
and 580 assigned) .199
WORAD Authorized and Assigned Personnel
NORAD Joint Table of Distribution (JTD) manpower
authorizations remained relatively firm. There were 544
manpower spaces authorized (254 officers, 284 airmen, and
6 civilians) at the beginning of 1979 and 527 authorized at
the end of 19)9'(244 officers, 277 airmen, and 6 civilians).
Correspondingly, the total personnel assigned to NORAD
decreased by 11 by the end of the year: five fewer officers
and six fewer 'airmen. -Each of the six COHUS NORAD Regions
lost one officer assigned , (except the 26th NORAD Region).
The 22d NORAD Region lost three airmen assigned; and ADCOS,
23d, and 25th NORAD Regions each lost one airman assigned.™
Reorganization and Reduction of the Headquarters Staff
The Aerospace Defense Center and its only major sub-
ordinate unit, the Aerospace Defense Combat Operations Staff
(ADCOS), both activated on 1 December, wore authorized a
total of 1,521 Air Force spaces (308 for the headquarters and
the remainder for the ADCOS). By the end of the year, 57 more
spaces had been added (35 for Detachment l's AWACS mission
and 22 for the ADCOS Space Defense Operations Center), to
bring the Air Force total authorization to 1,578. By virtue
of its joint and binational responsibilities, NORAD/ADCOM
(specified) Has also allocated 354 Joint Table of Distribution
(JTD) spaces in the headquarters, ADCOS, and Det 1, Tinker AFB,
0K. S Forty-six of these were Canadian spaces and the remain-
der U.S. (USAF, USA, I1SN, and Marine Corps). The total auth,^,
orized manning (Air Force and Joint manning) ,was 1 932. As-*
signed Air Force strength was 1,971, or 39-' more than author-
ised, a reflection of the number of personnel actions still ,
to be accomplished at the. end of the year. . The^-traditionally
stable JTD showed five fewer assigned than authorized. L'Tplal
assigned strength to NORAD/ADCOM (specified) /ADC was 2.493.201
The principal manpower savings from the reorgani-
zation came from the major command headquarters. Headquar-
ters staff agencies underwent change to one degree or another
in the late months of 1979 as they reorganised .and reduced'to,
assume the responsibilities of Aerospace .De£eSjjiCente'r,_ Of ,
the«17-'"deputates-and'"SpeciarStaff Element? 8 which',had aade'up'
the major command headquarters, three (Chief of "Safety,. Sur-
geon, and Chaplain) were not represented in the' Center or-
ganization; ajxd one (DCS/Engineering and Services) lost its
separate status and became a directorate in DCS/Logistics. "
The 13 remaining were reduced in assigned manpower from 13 to
SO percent during the last half of the year. , DCS/Intelli-
gence felt the least bite and Security Police the most, but ; s
the average reduction was 51 percent. In a class by itself '
was DCS/Communications, Electronics and Computer Resources,
which by virtue of new responsibilities gained in the Teor- '
ganization actually increased its strength by 21 percent.
Internal headquarters staff changes necessitated by the tran-
sition from i major command headquarters to a Center having
more limited responsibilities are described in the following
paragraphs.
On 1 December 1979, the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel reorganized into three primary directorates:
« 173 more belonged to CODS NORAD Regions and the
Alaskan NORAD Region.
Manpower, Plans and Programs, and Military Personnel. There
»as no change made to the Any Support Element or the Joint
Service Manning Division. DCS/Personnel assigned manning
dropped 24 percent from June to December 1379.202
Assigned on 30 June 1979
52 USAF 33 DAFC
1 Amy 1 KAF
Assigned on 31 December 1979
9 USAF 43 USAF
1 Army 4 Amy
The deputate's authorized ADC manning »as 9 Air Force and 6 JTD
spaces. Ten spaces Here authorized the J-l function in ADCOS.
(See Authorized Manning Chart on the following page.)
, "" DCS/Intelligence also reorganized on 1 December
1979'-, By-so -doing it hoped to improve'the-substantive'intel-
ligence capability and quality of production in the J-2 or-
ganization and to enhance the intelligence planning capabil-
ity through consolidation of like functions and reduction in
the span of control of the deputate. Five directorates Here
consolidated into three: Operational Intelligence, Intelli-
gence Systems, and Intelligence -Plans and Programs. 203 The
deputate lost 13 percent of its assigned personnel from the end
of June to the end of December 1979.204
on 30 June 1979
Officers Airmen Civilians
SI USAF - 92 USAF 37 DAFC
11 Army 3 Amy
9 Navy 5 Navy
Assigned on 31 December 1979
71 USAf
5 Any
9 Navy 3 Navy
60 USAF 71 USAf
1 Any 5 Any
Authorized manning in ADC was 2 Air Force and 26 JTD posi-
tions. The J-2 function in ADCOS was authorised 1S2 positions.
(See Authorized Manning Chart on the proceeding page.)
DCS/Operations (J-3) continued to be organised into
seven directorates during 1979. The title of the Directorate
of Systems Control and Configuration was changed on 1 Decem-
ber 1979 to the Directorate of User Interface Configuration
and Control. On 1 October 1979, all responsibility for dai-
ly management of air defense forces was transferred to TAC.
Generally, the functions lost concerned aircrew training,
aircrew evaluation, flying hour management, and other associ-
ated responsibilities such as aircraft displays, life support,
and airspace. The deputate decreased 27 percent in assigned
personnel from June to December 1979. On 30 June the deputate
iiad 217 personnel assigned (133 officers, 43 airmen, and 41
civilians); or, 31 December 1979, there were 158 personnel as-
signed (96-officers, 28' airmen, and 34 civilians). 205 Auth-
orized majining lw in,ADC was,93 Air_Force and„2S. 1 JTD.positions. . -
The J-3 function in ADCOS was authorized 312 positions. (See
Authorized Manning Chart.)
.The loss of resource management responsibility for
aerospace defense systems to other commands resulted in sub-
stantial changes in DCS/Logistics (J-4). It reorganized from
eight directorates to three: Civil Engineering, Weapon Sys-
tems Logistics, and Logistics Plans and Programs. Functions
transferred were as follows:
a. The Directorate of Contracting transferred to SAC on
1 November 1979,
b. The DEW System Office (Detachment 3, 46th Aerospace
Defense Wing) transferred to ADTAC on 1 October 1979.
c. Directorate of Supply functions transferred in part
to ADTAC on 1 October and in part to SAC on 1 November 1979.
d. Directorate of Transportation functions transferred
to ADTAC on 1 October 1979 and to SAC on 1 November 1979.
e, Directorate of logistics Plans and Programs functions
for NORAD were retained. All others transferred to ABTAC on
1 October 1979 and to SAC on 1 November 1979.
f. The Directorate of Communications and Electronics was
split up among SAC, TAC, AFCC, aid NORAB DCS/Communications,
Electronics and Computer Resources (J-6). The J-6 staff as-
sumed monitoring responsibility for Hq NORAD Cheyenne Mountain
Complex and contributing sensors.
h. Directorate of Maintenance Engineering functions (dai-
ly management of aircraft, munitions, and related weapons sys-
tem) transferred to ABTAC on 1 October 1S79. The control and
accountability of the AIR-2A weapons and logistics planning
and advocacy for NORAB remained with the NORAB/BCS Logistics
staff.
(U) BCS/Logistics reassigned 207 personnel to TAC on
1 October 1979 and 128 personnel to SAC on 1 Becember 1979.
' From' June to December, the deputate lost 88 percent of its as-
signed personnel:^
Manning on 30 June 1979
Officers Airmen Civilians
Manning on 31 December 1979
The deputate'^ authorized ADC manning was S Air Force and 2 JTB
spaces. Twenty-six spaces were authorized the J-^unction in
ADCOS. (See Authorized Manning Chart.)
DCS/Plans and Programs (J-5) organized a new direc-
torate on 1 October 1979 titled the Directorate of Command and
Control. On 1 December 1979 the title of the deputate was
changed to DCS/Plans, Policy, Programs, and Requirements. Also
at that time, the Directorate of Manpower and Organization
transferred to DCS/Personnel (J-l). J-S was reduced 26 percent
in personnel manning from June to December 1979.207
Manning on 30 June 1979
Officers Airmen Civilians
Manning on 31 December 1979
ADC authorized manning .for the deputate was 106 Air Force
and 19 JTD spaces. The J-5 function in ADCOS was authorized
9 positions. (See Authorized Manning Chart,}
DCS/Communications Electronics and Computer Re-
sources (J-6) continued with four directorates, but the ti-
tle of the Directorate of Regional Computer Center was
changed to the Directorate of Automated Data Processing (ADP)
Systems. On 1 November 1979, J-6 assumed new organizational
functions and responsibilities for supporting NORM/ADCOM
communications and ADP operational requirements; insuring
C1NCNORAD could exercise end-to-end operational conf igura- ,
tion control ■of-coBBunications,"electronics7*'and''ADP in the
sensors, the connecting communications, the NCMC, and con-
nections with forward users; and establishing an interface to
assure responsive SAC, TAC, and AFCS support of CINCNORAD/
CINCAD operational requirements, and to insure CINCNORAD/
CINCAD retained full configuration management and control of
all operations within the NCMC/ 08
On 1 October 1979, J-6 turned over ADP management
responsibility to SAC together with those personnel having
project management responsibilities. TAC assumed ADP and com-
munications management responsibilities related to atmos-
pheric defense and a number of personnel were transferred to
TAC. AFCS established a dual -hatted Deputy Commander for
Strategic Defensive Systems/Strategic Communications Area
who also served as the ADC/KRC.209
J-6 gained 21 percent in assigned personnel from
June to December. On 3D June 1979, 283 personnel (83 offi-
cers, 113 airmen,, and 87 civilians) were assigned; on 31 Dec-
ember 1979, 343 personnel (135 officers, 105 airmen, and 103
civilians) were assigned. 210 ADC authorized manning for J-6
was 21 Air Force and 9 JTD spaces. The J-6 function was
authorized 281 spaces in ADCOS. (See authorised Manning
Chart.)
The DCS/Comptroller was substantially reduced as a
result of the reorganization. The functions of the Directo-
rate of Accounting and finance were eliminated on 1 October
1979 and the Assistant for Systems and Plans on 1 December
1979. This left two directorates: Budget and Management
Analysis. DCS/Comptroller lost 45 (80 percent) of its as-
signed personnel: On 30 June 1979, 14 officers, 12 airmen,
and 30 civilians were assigned; by 31 December 1979, 5 of-
ficers (1 Col, 2 Lt Cols, and 2 Capts), 1 airman (E-8), and
S civilians (1 GS-13, 2 GS-12s, 1 GS-9, and 1 GS-S) were as-
signed. 211 The ADC authorized manning was the same as Ue
assigned spaces.
I On 1 October 1979, USAF redesignated the informa-
tion function as Public Affairs, and responsibility for the '
public affairs of former ADCOM units was transferred to TAC
on that date. The directorate assumed responsibility for
Public Affairs for the Aerospace Defense Center on 1 Decem-
ber 1979, concurrent with transferring to SAC responsibility
for the public affairs of the units it gained on that date.
Difficulties were encountered in maintaining a full scope of
activities to support CINCNORAD after a staff reduction of
44 percent. The directorate attempted to cope with the prob-
lem by using overage military personnel wording outside
their AFSC's and a civilian overhire. Eighteen personnel
were assigned on 30 June 1979: 7 officers, 4 airmen, and 7
civilians; on 31,December>1979, 40 personnel were assigned:'- -
3' officers, 2 airmen, and 5 civilians, 212 The directorate's
authorised ADC manning was 9 Air Force and 2 JTD spaces.
The' Judge Advocate function became a part of the
ADC staff on 1 December 1979. The function was reduced 20
percent (from three to two divisions), and from 10 personnel
assigned (4 officers, 2 airmen, and 4 civilians on 30 June) ,
to 8 personnel assigned on 31 December (3 officers, 1 airman,
and 4 civilians). 213 The Judge Advocate's authorized ADC
manning was 5 Air Force spaces (3 officers, 1 airman, and 1
civilian).
The 'Directorate of Administration continued with,,,
two divisions 1 , but lost six of its seven branches and 82 per-
cent of its assigned personnel. The Word Processing Center
was discontinued on 1, October 1979. The Printing Plant and
the Publishing and Forms Distribution Office transferred to
SAC's 46th Aerospace Defense Wing on the same date. The
Forms Management section was also discontinued on 1 October.
A total of 60 personnel (1 officer, 8 airmen, 27 DAFC, and
24 WB civilians) were assigned on 30 June 1979, but by
31 December 1979, there were only 11 personnel assigned (2
officers, 3 airmen, and 6 civilians). 214 ADC authorized Hum-
ming for the directorate was 10 Air Force and 1 JTD spaces.
. With the transfer of former ADCOM units to TAC and
AFCS on 1 October, and SAC, on 1 December, the Inspector Gen-
eral no longer had responsibility for the inspection of those
units. The NORAD/ADCOM (specified)MDC IG continued to per-
form the scheduling and budget function for ADTAC./IG and to
augment the ADTAC/IG on inspection trips as required through
the end of the year. The IG retained responsibility fir op-
erational evaluation of units gained by TAC and SAC. Lie IG
had 109 personnel assigned (44 officers, 6D airmen, and 5
civilians) on 30 June 1979. By 31 December, it had been re-
duced 76 percent to 26 assigned personnel (IS officers, 8 air-
men, and 3 civilians). 2 ^ Authorized manning was 3 Air Force
and 2 JTD spaces in the headquarters; 30 more spaces were
authorized the IG function in the ADCOS.
The office of the Chief of Safety was assigned 17
personnel (7 officers, 4 airmen, and 6 civilians) on 30 June
1979. Safety was realigned under ADTAC on 1 October 1979.
ADC had no resource management responsibility and thus no
Safety function. Fourteen personnel were reassigned from
ADCOM to TAC on ! October, 5 officers, 3 airmen, and 6 civil-
ians. 2W
The Command Surgeon was assigned 15 personnel (S of-
ficers, 7 airmen, and 3 civilians) on 30 June 1979. ADCOH
medical facilities were transferred to TAC on I October and
to SAC on i December 1979, and the office of the ADCOM Sur-
geon was discontinued.^'
The Command Chaplain was assigned 7 personnel (2 of-
ficers, 4 airmen, and 1 civilian) on 30 June 1979. 218 The
ADCOM Command Chaplain function was discontinued on 15 Octo-
ber 1979.219
The Director of Security was reduced on 1 December
1979 from three divisions and 15 assigned personnel (S offi-
cers, 7 -airmen, and 3 civilians) to a single entity, the
Directorate of Security, with two positions: Lt Col (0-5)
and MSgt (E-7). The functions were reduced to managing the
security for Headquarters NORAD/APC and the Security Police
function at the (CMC and providing liaison with the gaining
commands to assure optimal security for CINCNORAD's opera-
tional forces. - ?u The directorate was authorized 2 Air Force
spaces in ADCOS.
As a result of the reorganization, the Office of
History was reduced 50 percent, from four civilian spaces to
two. Authorized ADC manning for the Office of History was
two Air Force spaces.
Effective 1 December 1979, the DCS/Engineering and
Services was disestablished and the entire staff of 87 (9 of-
ficers, 11 airmen, and 67 civilians) reassigned elsewhere, 2 ^
Major command engineering responsibility for all of the TAC-
gained units (those with an atmospheric defense mission) was
transferred to Headquarters TAC. Major command engineering
responsibility for SAC-gained units (those with missile warn-
ing and space surveillance missions) was transferred to SAC.
Major command engineering responsibility for the NORAD Combat
Operations Center remained vested in the Aerospace Defense
Center (ADC). 222
The Director of Civil Engineering (0-6) with a small
staff was established under DCS/Logistics (J-4) on 1 December
1979. Their responsibilities included: 223
a. Performing MAJCCM functions for civil engineer input
on programs for modifications to existing systems and the con-
struction of new systems or facilities to support the NORAD
mission. Although the responsibility for these systems rested
with SAC and TAC, the NORAD staff reviewed the programming,
assisted in the advocacy role, and followed the design to as-
sure that the civil engineering requirements as perceived by
NORAD were included in .the design and construction.
Battle Staff support to
c. Maintaining liaison with major command/Director cf
Engineering supporting NORAD units.
d. The NORAD office symbol was N0RAD/J-4C; the ADC of-
fice symbol was ADC/LGD.
Civilian Personnel
The ADCOM reorganization showed a net civilian man-
power savings in the USAF Greenbook, January 1978, of 443
personnel. This figure was revised to 3S6 in May 1979, and to
261 in July 1979, ■ The ADCOM Director of Civilian Personnel,
Mr. Charles I. Shinn, began extensive planning early in 1979
for civilian personnel transfers and reduction in force (RIF)
expected to ensue as.a result of the reorganization. Other
military agencies in the area, such as the Air Force Academy
and Fort Carson, were contacted, and they agreed to place a
hiring freeze on permanent employment until ADCOM identified
its RIF'd civilian employees. Coordination was effected also
with the Office of Personnel Management in Denver. That of-
fice agreed to contact all Federal agencies in its area to
ask for cooperation in placing RIF'd employees. The State
Employment Commission also agreed to identify potential job
markets for ADCOM employees affected. (This action did not
become necessary.) The staff of the Directorate of Civilian
Personnel developed and published a step-by-step plan of action
in April 1979 which served as a Guide and Checklist for Trans-
fer of Function and Reduction-in-Force actions, 224 Mr. Shinn
was able to learn much from the personnel difficulties encoun-
tered by AFCS during its transfer from Richards -Gebaur AFB to
Scott AFB several years before.
The first group counseling of civilians on the re-
organization as it affected the headquarters was held in the
auditorium of the Chidlaw Building, at Cheyenne Mountain Com-
plex, and Peterson AFB on 19 April 1979. An informative book-
let, "Procedures for Functional Transfer of Civilian Employ-
ees," was handed out which explained various subjects in plan-
ning and executing a functional transfer. Personnel were in-
vited to ask questions at the end of th'e session. Another
group counseling meeting was held on 20 September 1979.22S
Representatives of BOD, USAF, SAC, TAC, and AFCS were at this
meeting to answer questions. In late November 1979, individ-
ual personnel counseling was offered to interested personnel
by appointment. Mr. Shinn and his assistant counseled 80
personnel during these sessions. In the meantime, the Director
of Civilian Personnel made his staff available for walk-in
counseling. Mr. Shinn said that all but one personnel griev-
ance was resolved in individual personnel counseling before
they grew into serious problems. In the one instance, he
called a disgruntled individual who had written to a Congress-
man about the way the reorganization was handled by the Civil-
ian Personnel Office, and after a personal' counseling session,
the employee understood the situation and was satisfied with
personnel actions which affected her. 22 *"
.. HQ ADCOM began reorganization effective 1
1979."'. The Director of Civilian Personnel, Peterson AFB,
CO, delivered a Preliminary Offer of Transfer of Function
letter to 1S1 civilian employees on 4 September 1979 to trans-
fer to TAC and 113 accepted the offer; SO employees were of-
fered transfer to SAC and 40 accepted; and all 5 employees
offered transfer to AFCS accepted. 228 (The Preliminary Offer
letter was merely a survey to identify those employees who
wished to transfer with their functions and those who, under
no circumstances, would transfer. }229 Letters of Specific
Transfer of Function Offers to TAC were delivered to 80 em-
ployees on 1 November 1979 and 42 accepted; 28 employees were
given specific offers to transfer to SAC and 11 accepted; and
2 employees were offered transfers to AFCS and none accepted. 230
(The Specific Offer could be changed, but only for a better
offer,) Employees were scheduled to be transferred to TAC,
SAC, AFCC, and ADC en 11 January 1980.231 Approximately 25
employees of the 42 accepting transfer to TAC (assigned to
ADTAC) were scheduled to transfer about April 1981.232
A total of 152 employees received Reduction in
Force (RIF) letters on 1 November 1979.233 Of that number,
110 were reassigned laterally, 39 were downgraded with saved
pay, and 3 were separated from Civil Service to accept a
better offer. Civilian employees who elected to retire due
to the reorganisation totaled 125; 49 voluntary retirements,
44 early optional, 25 tiiscontinued service, and 7 on dis-
ability.
The delay in accomplishment of the reorganization^
caused by the civilian suit brought against the Government,
prolonged the unsettled condition of civilian employees and
aggravated manning shortages. Many were long-tine employees
of the command and had deep roots iir Colorado Springs. A
high percentage ware former military personnel who had re-
tired and moved here because it was the geographical area of
their choice. They were not dependent upon their civilian
income alone. Over one-half the headquarters civilian work
force was eligible for some kind of retirement. Many ac-
cepted the preliminary offer, and even the specific offer,
with the intention of turning the job down in the end if some-
thing more attractive came up in the meantime. Many senior
people, not wishing to move from the area, looked to retire-
ment or employment with another Federal agency in the area.
Employees with little seniority and facing RIF action, looked
also to other employment either in the Federal or civilian
sector. Efforts to provide opportunities for employees (a
civilian hiring freeze at Peterson AFB from April 1979 to
11 January 1980 to create positions for those affected and the
priority given to hiring ADCOM employees by the Air Force
Academy and Fort Carson) were perhaps too successful. About
75 experienced personnel (ranging from clerks and secretaries
to highly qualified engineers} accepted jobs at AFA and Fort
Carson rather than transfer to SAC or TAC or wait for the
possibility, that a NORAD/A0C position would be offered. AD-
COM, therefore, suffered a loss of expertise froa which it
would take years to recover, 234
Looking back over 1979, Mr. Shinn said some mis-
takes were made in civilian personnel actions because of in-
experience: this was the first time some civilian personnel
specialists had handled a reorganization of a ntajor command
split in so many different ways. But he emphasized that keep-
ing all employees informed of both positive and negative as-
pects of the situation did more than anything else to gain
positive support from civil'
In summary, the revised Greenbook civilian manpower
savings of the ADCOM reorganization was planned to be 261.
More than that was actually saved: 42 accepted transfer to
TAC, 11 to SAC, 7S personnel transferred to AFA and Fort Car-
son, 3 separated, 125 retired, and 110 were reassigned later-
ally, making a total of 366, This left NORAD/ADC at the end
of 1979 with vacancies to fill,
Officer Grade Reductions
In December 1978, HQ USAF imposed a reduction in of-
ficer grades upon ADCOM for FY 79, the most serious of which
were reduction of 5 colonel authorizations to lieutenant colo-
nel and 23S captain authorizations to lieutenant. 23 "
Every effort was raade to minimise the downgrading
of captain authorizations in active operational units. To
this end, candidates for reduction were selected from radar
squadrons afld other units which were programmed to inactivate
in FY 79 or FY 80, thereby a minimal personnel impact and
less grade constraints would be experienced by remaining op-
erational units. One-third of the grade reductions were made
at Kingsley Field, OR; the 17th Defense System Evaluation
Squadron, Mains trom AFB, bff; and short-term radar squadrons.
Based on future operational requirements, SO captain (Air
Weapons Controller, AFSC 1744} authorizations were reduced to
lieutenants. The remaining 109 captain authorizations re-
duced to lieutenant were in the field and in HQ ADCOM."'
The five colonel authorisations downgraded to lieu-
tenant colonel were: Commander, Kingsley Field, OR; Director
of Engineering and Construction, DCS/ Engineering and Services,
ADCOM; Director of Logistics, 20th Air Division; Director of
logistics, 24th Air Division; and Commander, 1/th Defense Sys-
tem Evaluation Squadron. 238
. .. On 15 March 1979,,' Lieutenant General B.L. Davis, DCS/
Manpower and Personnel, HQ USAF, wrote to General Hill, CINC-
NORAD, expressing concern over the number of general officer
authorisations" Congress was pressuring the military services
to reduce and proposed a drawdown of generals after the ADCOM
reorganization. General Hill replied on 5 April 1979: °*
Retention of the joint staff general officers
is essential to preserving the integrity and
influence of. the NORAD and ADCOM operational
missions in the post reorganization environ-
ment. It will be critically important, par-
ticularly during the early days of the reor-
ganization, that clear, usable, and effective
channels be maintained into equivalent staff
functions of SAC, TAG, and AFCS,... Moreover,
USAF must honor the commitment to allies that
there be no degradation of mission or responsi-
bilities for ADCOM assets to SAC and TAC.
There is inherent risk of an allied preception
of a breach of faith by the USAF if general of-
ficer positions are downgraded that retain re-
sponsibility for operational control of NORAD
assets. This risk may prove to be unacceptable,
USAF directed ADCOM to conduct an annual review of
general officer manning by 15 June 1979 and reduce its gen-
eral officer strength for FY 80 by one general officer manned
position. The Brigadier General position in DCS/ Intelligence
(J-2) was selected for manning by an 0-6.240
C1NCAD received a, joint message, on 19 Sep-
tember 1979, from the Secretary of State to the American Em-
bassy in Ottawa which announced that USAF planned to redesig-
nate the NORAD/ADCQM command position to a three-star billet
on 31 December 1979. This plan was based on manpower consid-
erations made necessary by a Congressional mandate to reduce
general officer strength in Fiscal Year 1978.2*1
U.S. Araj Manpower__Resour_ce^_in_OTRAD
Following public announcement of the ADCOM reor-
ganization proposal and withdrawal of Array Air Defense Artil-
lery (ADA) resources from NORAD on 9 April 1979,* NORAD ex-
amined Army resources in each region and; the headquarters
staff regarding their future mission essentiality. The FY
80 NORAD/ADCOM Joint Manpower Program {JMP), I October 1978^
had been approved by JCS on 26 March 1979, which reflected
authorizations for FY 80 and requirements for FY 81 through
FY 84. JCS lag time in approving any change from one service
to another in the JMP was one year. As a result of the re-
view, an out-of-cvcle change to the NORAD Joint Manpower
Program [JMP) was' submitted to the JCS on 14 August 1979.
The JMP reflected a net NORAD reduction of 11 Army spaces.
After the ADCOM reorganization, 14 additional Army spaces in
the regions were to be converted to USAF spaces, amounting to
a total Army reduction of 36 spaces, 242
Increased Manning for E-3A and S?ADOC
PI
On 14 May 1979, ADCOM requested that USAF increase
NGRAD manning for mission crews (16 officers and 16 airmen
spaces) , standardization and evaluation requirements (1 of-
ficer and 1 airman spaces), command post augmentation (1 air-
man space), and administrative augmentation (1 airiaan space).
With the exception of the administrative augmentation, USAF
approved manpower requirements on 30 July 1979 for 17 officers
and 18 airmen in the FY 81 Budget submission. 244
In June 1979, USAF authorized 25 manpower spaces to
NORAD/ADCOM for the Space Defense Operations Center as it was
directly tied to the Anti-Satellite System (ASAT). All spaces
were to be carried in a new functional account code titled
SPADOC.245
Air i Weapons Controller Manning
Air force wide problems of low manning and experi-
ence levels of Air Weapons Controllers (AWCs) [AFSC 17XX)
were particularly, severe in ADCOM. Overseas users of AWCs
required assignment of experienced personnel, and this kept
ADCOM ' s experience level low; and priority manning was given
to a new tactical control group in Germany and the E-3A
AWACS. HQ USAF had long recognized the poor retention rate
and low manning within the Air Weapons Controller career
field and had held several symposia to consider the problem.
In a symposium in May 1977, a master plan called the "USAF
17XX Management Plan" was initiated which promised to be the
long sought-after solution to ACCOM's problems. The master
plan called for increasing the number of prior experience of-
ficers returning to the field and improving basic AWC train-
ing so that new accessions could be employed overseas direct-
ly from basic weapons controller training.
In FY 77, and several years preceding that year,
the requirement was 240 personnel allotted to training as Air
Weapons Controllers. By FY 78, the trained personnel re-
quirement (TPR) increased to 310 ne» 17XXs, and 30 prior ex-
perience officers returned to the career field. FY 79 ac-
cessions increased to 434 new 17XXs, plus 30 prior experience
AWCs: 52 went to overseas short tours, 153 to United States
Air Forces Europe and Tactical Air Command control units, 44
to Airborne Warning and Control System, and 185 to ADCOM. 246
To improve Air Weapons Controller training, the Air
Training Command initiated a manual control system qualifica-
tion training (SQT) course at TvndaU AFB, FL, on 27 Febru-
ary 1978. All subsequent graduates' to this course went direct-
ly <
January 1979 marked the low ooint in both manning
(75 percent) and experience level in AFSC 17XX, but by 1 Sep-
tember ADCOM air divisions had reached 83 percent manning.
By March 1980, ADCOM was projected to be approximately 100
percent manned in the Air I'/eapons Controller (AFSC 17.XX)
career field. 24?
In November 1978, CSAF had notified all major com-
mands that no additional funds would be' forthcoming, and the
commands would have to live .within the levels provided. At
that time, the total ADCOM Operations and Maintenance Program
alone totaled $355 million. 248
In FY 79, as in the two preceding years, by applying
very stringent budget practices and deferring to FY 80 any
programs not absolutely essential to the mission, ADCOM stay-
ed within its-budget of $372 million as of 30 September 1979.
Over 47 percent of the ADCOM Budget ($177.2 million)
was obligated to contracts. Other major expenditures were
$74 million for civilian pay and a like amount for supplies.
Many of the supplies were purchased during the last month of
the fiscal year, at which time ADCOM replenished depleted
stock levels in all areas including fuels.
During the last five weeks of the fiscal year, al-
most $6 million of supplemental funding was provided by USAF.
This included $188,000 to cover flying hour supplies for the
F-4 aircraft in Iceland, and 545,000 to continue the AtfACS
Operations Analysis Study. USAF provided another $1.8 mil-
lion during the last week of the fiscal year, which was used
primarily to purchase asphalt for repair of the runway and
ramp at Sondrestrom AB, Greenland. 2 ^
All major programs were funded during the fiscal
year. These included the entire ADCOM flying hour program,
civilian pay, utilities and fuels, and repair of the roofs of
the Thule BMEWS buildings which ADCOM had attempted to fund
for the past three years. Not only were the materials pur-
chased in FY 79 for the project, but also a contract was let
for the work. Over $2.1 million in facility projects were
funded. The replacement of bladder fuel tsnks at DEW Line
sites with metal tanks continued. This was expected to help
eliminate the problem of fuel leakage. Water pipe was also
purchased to replace deteriorated pipe on the DEW Line. A
major unfunded project for the past three years had been re-
pair of the Sondrestrom runway. Almost $2.8 million of the
S6 million supplemental purchased asphalt for the project.
Finally, tubes and other electronic supplies were purchased to
support BMEWS and the DEW Line. This was significant because
many of the components would soon be out of production, and
these purchases insured future operations.
In Dlanning for the reorganization of the Aerospace
Defense Command, the DCS/Comptroller, Colonel L. R, Ravetti,
proposed reorganization actions (unit transfers and closures,
and MAJCQM changes) coincide vith the end .'of the fiscal year.
Other HAJCOM Comptrollers concerned concurred in the recom-
mendation, but it was not adopted, To insure equitable fi-
nancing for all of the ADCOM units to be gained by other com-
mands during FY 79, the ADCOM Comptroller retained control of
all FY 79 budgeting and accounting for ADCOM units transfer-
ring tO' other commands until 15 November 1979. This situation
whereby for a short time financial resources remained with
ADCOM, but all other responsibilities transferred to other
major commands proved awkward and tended to undermine resource
management. ^Sp-
in summary, ADCOM was able to fund all mission-
essential items in FY 79. The original deficit, however, was
over $39 million. With $1? million provided by USAF, this
left $22 million, of requirements not funded. Many of these
were important programs and projects that had to be delayed or
cancelled due to lack of funds.- 51
Funding responsibility for FY 80 was transferred to
the gaining commands-'SAC, TAC, and AFCS--on 1 October 1979,
After USAP allocation of the FY 80 budget to the gaining
commands and ADC, there was a remaining deficit of almost $55
million, excluding the withholds which were funds USAF identi-
fied but held back until the command proved they were need-
As was usually the case, the unfunded programs were
in Major Force Programs (MFP) I (Strategic Forces) and II
(General Purpose Forces). The 5750,000 unfunded in MFP II
consisted primarily of 5724,000 to continue AWACS Operational
Analysis study. The remaining 526,000 affected F-4 aircraft
supplies. The largest deficit was in MFP I, $59.6 million.
Subtracting the withholds (55.5 million), the remaining defi-
cit was $54,9 million (about $20 million for SAC, $20 million
for TAC, and $15 million for ADC). 2 "
The FY 80 ADC and ADCOM Operations Operating Budgets,
as estimated at the end of the calendar year, are shown on the
following page.
ADCOM OPERATIONS OPERATING BUDGET, FY 78, FY 79, FY 80 (Est)
(in millions)
Major Force Program FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 (Est)
I Strategic Forces $323,961 $353,866 $32,263
Airlift/Sealift
VIIIA Training and Other
General Personnel
Activities
VIIIB Medical Programs
IX Administration and
Associated Acti-
vities
TOTAL $345,014 $372,508 $33,987
~$6TJKE: Data furnished by Maj F. E. Byford, ACB, 25 Mar
0; and Operating Budget Authority by Major Force Program,
of Budget, HQ USAF, for FY 78 and FY 79,
CHAPTER II
BALLISTIC MISSILE SURVEILLANCE AND WARNING
Introduction
The Ballistic Missile Surveillance and Warning
System consisted of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning
System (BMEWS) ; the Sea-launched Ballistic Missile Detec-
tion and Warning System (SLBM D5W) ; the Perimeter
Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization Systei (PARCS);
the Defense Support Program (DSP); and contributing sensors
froi the Space Detection and Tracking Systei (SPADATS) ,
Information gathered by these systems was transmitted to
the Missile Warning and Display System in the Missile
Warning Center of the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex.
There, attack characterization and assessment was made to
determine the potential of a ballistic missile attack
upon the U.S. and Canada and the information transmitted
to the' National' Command Authority.
The 9 November Incident
For about three minutes on the
morning of 9 November 1979 a test scenario of a missile
attack on North Aierica was, through a combination of
anomalies and coincidences, transmitted from a test
device (a Message Generator Recorder or MG/R) to the op-
erations side of the 427M computer system in the Cheyenne
Moujitain_Combat_Operations Center] ~ ^
Jf
u
[U) The 9 November incident prompted considerable
interest on the cart of the press,' within the Congress,
and at HQ USAF, the JCS, and OSD. In response to a number
of inquiries about the brief alert, the OSD released details
to the press. Air Force, JCS, and OSD officials visited
MORAD soon after the event for briefings. The JCS produced
a number of action items or directions for corrective action.
As was routine for such an event, NORAD established an
Operations Review Board (ORB) on 12 November. In late Nov-
ember, General Allen directed the Air Force Inspector General
to visit the Cheyenne Mountain Complex to look at the ABCOM
reorganization and the 9 November event.
Press comment stimulated by the OSD
news release evidenced concern about the general health of
the air defense system, 3 but with the OSD announcement late
in the month that the problem had been solved, interest
wanned.' Briefings to Congressional members and their staffs
carried through this theme: some weakness had been discov-
ered in the system, which were being corrected, but it was
fundamentally sound. The incident had reinforced the belief
that the system must have redundancies built in and that
human judgment played a crucial role in such circumstances.
The "five minutes" reported in the press had been spent con-
firming beyond doubt that it was false, but in the meantime
certain precautionary measures had been taken. 5
k\
At the end of 1979 the inter-'"";-
nal NORAD Operations Review Board investigation contin-
ued, and the USA? IG inspection was underway. Many of
the more obvious and quickly accomplished fixes and
procedural changes had been made, and increased empha-
sis had been given to training. 50 Systems improvements
would tafce longer and involve considerable expense. Af-
ter the fact, NORAD officers recalled that in 1974 the
command had recognized the potential hazards involved
in continuing to develop the 427M system while at the
same time it was in operation, and had requested a fourth
computer for testing. Lack of funds prevented its ac-
qtiisitioti.il No w they settled on a testing moritorium
in the near term while preparing plans to remove such
activity from the Mountain altogether. Prom the NORAD
perspective, also, it seemed the attention it received
after 9 November had at least one positive aspect in
that senior Washington officials were taking increased
interest in and gaining a greater understanding of the
command, its systems, and problems.
B allistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEKS )
In December 1978 Generals Hill and Slay
had agreed that it was critical that the BHEWS IBM 7090
computers be replaced. ADCOM wanted the new computers to
have the growth potential to accommodate future BMEWS
modernization. HQ AFSC said that since it lacked full
definition of the threat scenario for 1985, it could not
fully define hardware, requirements to be' sen.t to con-
tractors in bid solicitations. It therefore recommended
an interim system which would provide a capability equiv-
alent to the present 7090. More time would then be
available to build a new system around a more completely
defined threat, 13 ADCOM replied that recent evidence
indicated that BMEWS computers were deteriorating more
rapidly than expected and that the rate of deterioration
had increased. .* Since it might not be feasible to provide
final computer hardware in 1981, the command found the
interim ADP hardware option "acceptable," But regard-
less of the approach taken on the computers (interim ADP
or direct to a final system), ADCOM wanted upgrade of the
radars to proceed without interruption, with a goal of
completing the Thule and Clear sites in FY-83,14 In a
26 April 1979 meeting, Air Staff, AFSC, ADCOM, and BSD
representatives agreed on a course of action to replace
the computers at Thule and Clear by the end of 1981
and at Fylingdales six months later. The computers to
be purchased vould be compatible with the current BMEWS
radars and have the growth potential to support the later
upgrade program. BSD then looked to March 1980 as the
contract date for replacement of the 7090 computers. 15
This planning was substantiated in a new Program Manage-
ment Directive issued in July. It also called for up-
grade of the BMEWS radars not later than the fourth
quarter of FY-85 either by modernization or replacement.
Funding of this wor& had been held up by OSD, however,
pending results of a study which would examine the rela-
tive merits of upgrading BMEWS and replacing all or some
of the BMEWS radars with phased array radars. 16
, In late December 1978, Dr. Gerald P.
Dinneen, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence) ,' encouraged by a Ray-
theon Corporation proposal for replacing BMEWS radars
with phased array radars, tasked the Air Force to examine
the option. ADCOM made its own evaluation of the Ray-
theon proposal and found each site would cost not $88
million, as stated by Raytheon, but $150 million. The
difference seemed to be that Raytheon had not counted in
all the additional costs peculiar to arctic construction
nor all the costs of spares, training, contractor profit,
etc., which would be costs to the government.!' j p early
1979 ADCOM provided Operations and Maintenance (QfiM) cost
estimates and a threat coverage analysis to the Air Staff
study, and by the end of April ESD had. completed its
examination of cost estimates;! 8
1. The initial cost for a phased array radar
at Thule ilone was much greater than BMEWS modern-
ization for all BMEWS sites.
■ 2, With the 'phased array adequate threat coverage
was possible, but it presented greater technical risk
and a, later Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date
than BMEWS modernization.
3.. About a 24 percent reduction in OIJM co&ts
would be realized using an upgraded PAVE PAWS phased
array.
In his quarterly letter to the Secretary of Defense in mid-
July General Hill expressed concern that the upgrade of
detection and tracking radars "... appears to continue to
lead a precarious life." It had suffered more twists and
turns in the budget process than CINCNORAD could keep track
of and was again in trouble because debate over which was
better, phased array or modernised BMEWS , had been prolonged
despite conclusions of an Air Force study that upgrading the
present radars was best. 19 In a letter to Dr. Dinneen later in
July, Generaljill .compared the two ootions.
^,... , f-Eeneral"HIH~s"8Td modernization ms'tSe preferred
r option because it would be available earlier than phased array
and would be cheaper. 2 ^
The OSD's protracted examination of
the phased array alternative to BMEWS aodernkation had the
effect of delaying funding for the radar upgrade. 21 Funding
of the Missile Impact Predictor upgrade (including computers)
remained on schedule, however, anticipating contract award
in March 1980, until early September. OSD then deferred all
$9 million in FY SO R§D funds for BMEWS, and this included
S3. 9 million needed for the HIP upgrade. 22 .In response to Air
Force expressions of concern, Dr. Dinneen restored the funds
on IS October, but also said the cost was too high (nearly
$40 million), and steps w;ould be taken to reduce that amount
by at least $10 million. 23 A month later, Hq USAF reported
OSD had agreed that the Air Force could proceed with upgrade
of the Thule detection radar. 24 It was a beginning, but fund-
ing problems persisted. In December the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the House Appropriations Committee jointly
agreed to delete .-the .$9 million, which again included $5.9
million for the ..computer replacement contract. The Congres-
sional committees reportedly would consider BMEWS improvements
as part of a la-rger Missile Warning Master Plan only after a
report it had requested from the DOD had been submitted, one
which at the end of the year was overdue. This delay carried
the potential of six months to a year slip in the progran if
the contract could not be let in March. The hope was that
the computer replacement program could be detached irom the
Master Plan, and it was to that end the Air Force was working
at the end of the year, 2S Major General W, C. Moore, VCINCAD,
noted in a letter to Hq USAF/PA in December that sensor__ -- .
improvements designed to lead ADCOMr""
M.
' Sea Launched Ballistic Missile Detection and Warning (SLBMD5H)
System " " _~ mm ™~~™™
,. . . ., The SIBMD5W System consisted of six AN/
FSS-7 radars and one AJJ/FPS-85 phased array radar located
on the East, West, and Gulf Coasts of the United States. The
three West Coast sites were at Mt Hebo, OR; Mt Laguna, CA;
and Mill Valley, CA. The two on the East Coast were at
Fort Fisher, NC; and Charleston, ME. ' The Gulf Coast radar
was at HacDill AFB, FL. TheJWFK^SjasJocated at F-glin
j^jj u _2liO_QB_tle_Gul£ • ,' '
Pi
The FSS-7s, or Fuzzy-7s as they were not v
always affectionately called, had begun operations on an
interira basis in July 1970, had reached Interim Operational
Capability (IOC) on S May 1972, but because of inherent sys-
tem deficiencies, had never officially reached Final Opera-
tional Capability (FOC). The radars were- a modification of
the FPS-26 height-finder radar used for aircraft detection
and required a great deal of logistical and maintenance
attention to keep then at a reasonably high level of opera-
tional availability. Constant attention increased the sys-
tem's availability from about SO percent early in its opera-
tional .life to about 85 percent more recently, but the
inherent deficiencies remained. Also, the FSS-7 was not
capable of detecting sojne of the trajectories in which the
Soviets might fire their SS-6 SLBMS^and it would miss al- -
together most-SSN-8 trajectories.
yl
The effectiveness of the ground-based
segment of the SLBMDSW system would be substantially im-
proved with the acquisition of tiro dual-faced AN/FPS-11S
phased array radars (acronym PAVE PAWS) . ADCOM wanted
four sites, but by the end of 1979 only two had been
funded, one for each coast to cover known threat areas.
Planning for PAVE PAWS was completed in the middle 1970s,
and although funding was delayed, beginning in FY-75
Congress provided $47.7 million of a total estimated $126
million for sites at Otis AFB, HA, and Beale AFB, CA.
Raytheon Corporation's Equipment Division was the prime
contractor and IBM developed the software. Planning
called forjthe Otis site to be completed' in 36 months and
l; the :Beale*site4n ,48 months. .Design and site investi-
ftgati'on'-Mastcompleted'for Site.-I in April 1976 and Site II
£' inlNovemberSMhat year^'Site'preparation at Otis began
I' in Novembeffl976 .and at Beale in March 1977., At the end
I, of 1978'cqnstruction'was on schedule. It was then ex-
? : pected .thalJOtis Would .achieve Initial Operational Capa-
'"biIitjf_(IOC};;in' April 1979 and Beale a year, later. After
■a period of 'operating the Otis site in conjunction with,
the FSSt7 sites, ADCOM planned to close the East Coast .
sites in June. 27*
, r , .r^In'searly 'January 1979 Air Force Systems Command's
AElectroiidSysteJaJlirtsion began the^O-dayaMiability',
t^atSfiaraity^^aS Availability (RM£,A) phase of the
.DeyeloDnenKTest 'and Evaluation (DT§E) checkout of the
'Otis PAVE PAWS technical facility. Members of ABCOM's ■..
6th Missile Warning Squadron (MWS), activated the pre-
vious October, worked alongside BSD personnel and the
contractor to gain experience in what would be their
future operational duties.' For the next two months,
• until the test was completed on 25 February, the system
was available 98.7 percent of the time (57 failures which
actually occurred or were intentionally injected into the
system' were corrected within the three hour time limit
allowed). This completed the DT§E portion of the system's
progression ..to .operational status. The next phase, a
60-day Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTSE),
began 6 March. For the first month the Air Force would
operate the system 12 .hours a day and the contractor
*The FSS-7 at MacDill AFB would be retained until a
new southeast PAVE PAWS site, planned but not yet
became operational.
would use the other 12 to clean up discrepancies. Plans
called for the Air Force to accept the Otis site from the
contractor on or about 13 April. Thereafter, the 6 MKS
would operate the systei 24 hours a day, and if operation
at near or full power for an extended period confirmed
design specifications and capabilities, the Air Force
planned to declare it operational in June. 28
... ESD's Program Office accepted
delivery of the site on 12 April, with the provision that
remaining deficiencies would be cleaned up by the con-,
tractor."' I0I5E was completed 21 May, 30 but contractor,
efforts to correct outstanding anomalies discovered dur-
ing that time continued into early July. The turnover ,,
... date to^ADCOM remainedjunconfirmed; andiasja^esultitte-t^j
• two EastiiCoast >FSS-7<sites continueiMpsiiitiaiisJiejani •ri'[,B
' their "|l£med_Jun£closure date. J " ~* x '~ * •
'.■'. 'fey.' . M[$\. ■■■"■ ; V ~iM^'-M^' : ^M
:.'-'"' ' AICOM now looked to 1 -'August^
as . the.<date r Tf vrouldiaciiuire the^OtistSacilityr.couience' '""- • ';.
dual :opffa'tiansjiJ|te!flie JSS-J^sitesJlBand^b.egijo^litiiP^i-^Siwte-
*eEsliig"the^data , %co5lired*by'*the hew facility-'as»"re3l;j . • •"
world. "31'V Between IS "July and 1 August~thep,MWSroperated'
the system in a "real world" Bode (althouglrdatawasV. '
treated as- test information) , in OT.der to verify the : ..
contractor had completed his corrections." On 02/0001Z
August the dual operation began." [,
-.. ;,;. : £, - . ... ■■ Operation of the'PAVE PAKSradar 1 ^^
under full power conditions revealed serious, weaknesses
in the power system.- Normally, the radar worked on com- -
mer'cial power, but six diesel generators had been provided
for backup in case that source was disrupted. For the
radar's ejtergy pulse to reach out to its maximum range,
electrical^ power was drawn into a capacitor bank, built
up, then discharged or surged into space. This procedure,
called power surging happened every 51 milliseconds. ■
The withdrawal of large amounts of power from the commer-
cial system caused a slight flickering effect in lighting
within the technical radar facility, the power plant, and
in the surrounding civilian community of Sandwich, Massa-
chusetts. As operations at full power became more
continuous, complaints from residents threatened to
provide new ammunition to those opposed to the facility
on the grounds of its adverse impact on the local environ-
ment. These power 'fluctuations also were fed back into
the backup diesel generators when they were used, making
them incapable of operating for extended periods as the
primary power source. Potentially most serious- of all,
instabilities caused by the power fluctuations might
find their way back into the radar's electronics and
degrade the sensor,'*
ADCOM believed PAVE PAHS must
■ have reliable power before it assumed operational, re-
sponsibility and as a consequence closed its FSS-7 sites,
and if urged AFSC-totake action to correct the problem. 35
AFSC shared ADCOM's concern, and directed ESD to con-
'■ tract with Raytheon to review the three-sided power :..;.;:i .-
problem, i.e., the ability -of the diesels and; generators V r
to operate the radar, interference with commercial ^power* '
■ in the local community, and light flickering in the ■
technical facility and power plant. 36 By the end of
August, Raytheon had come up with a temporary. fix. It
would modify the diesel generators, voltage regulators,
-governors, etc. , to enable the generators -to Jiandle -
reliably power fluctuations without affect to'' the -tech-
"lii'ea Macili'ty^oMSmagV-'tb^tKe'SseliresT iffstarrfKar s **' ;lv
monic filter to eliminate interference with commercial -
power in the community; and determine the type of motor
generator required to prevent the light flickering prob' ■
lem. These modifications were expected to take six to
eight weeks; thereafter, a determination would be made
..whether or not the power plant could be used as an
interim backup power source, and what needed to be done--
■to achieve a permanent solution to the problem. 37 ADCOM
followed progress of the modification program during
September and late in the month, informed HQ USAF that
since the test and modification period could last to
_9 November,, so also would the dual operationjtitlLJhe
JastCoast Hs'-7$3$/
V
_ Despite me increased atten-
tion UNen the poweffroblem in the late months of the
ye,r, biwever, modification of diesels, and new problems
with the mechanical condition of the engines, prevented
final testing during that tine and the year ended with
PAVE PAWS I still in a non-operational status. 41
With Otis still "red," the Fuzzy-7s had to stay
-■green." The Fort Fisher and Charleston sites, which
were to be closed in June, were still operating at the
end of the year. The delay was expensive for ABCDM in
direct costs ($87,000 a month), in TOY by augmentation
personnel from throughout the command, and in personnel
hardsnip caused by the indefinite' delay. 42 These prob-
lems did not result it a decline of systems availability,
however, and in a Christmas message General Kill ex-
pressed his appreciation. 43
.... .. .?».,{ s*^ 'i ■ >- - ■ •• ■' ;?.
~7. ' :l.s;A';yearjagonoIone,,thoughtswe would still
¥ be bperating.tne : Siizzyj-7. radars at Fort Fisher
andCharleston.'SThei'fac.tithat Fuzzy is still
Y \ up ahd^perating^s'^lip'ther lathe -long line,
"- ,; of tnbutesiJitfethetdedicatedaen.andiwonen^who'
: " ■'■ have' given soiiuchjofcthemseives oyer'tlw years'
to aaiVand keep ?Wzy'green.'"'None of those
. who have gone before, however; are more de-
serving of .our/app'recktion than are those,
who are 'serving. ataFojtjFisheraiid .Charleston
today ;.;both';;those.^Hp{iiaditheir L PCS v .plans?dis- .
^^^upi^qand^thpse;™);' because. flfinecessar.y*IDyw'»r ■--
will+be-awaf;ffba' home'tand loved ones 'this,
■ holiday season:""'"?''" ' ' " _ ■'
2. Please extend to the members of your com-
mand not only ay appreciation but also that of
all the officers, men,;' and women of NORAD for
the particularly singular contribution your
people are making^toKhe'. defense of our nation
during the holiday! season. We will continue
i to press here for a. ; speedy resolution of the.
' problems which have extended your closure dates,
but, in the meantime, until national defense
takes a.tholiday, neither can Fuzzy.
Perimeter Acquisition Rada r Attack Characterization
System (PARCS] ™~ ~ — — — — —
. The PARCS was a phased array
AN/FPQ-16 radar built by Concrete, North Dakota, in the
early 1970s as the nucleus of the United States Army's
Safeguard'antiballistic missile (ABM) system. Khen it
was decided not to proceed with an operational ABM
system, PARCS was offered to the Air Force as a missile
warning and space surveillance and tracking radar. Work
by the Any and the Air Force on a transfer agreement
began in early 1976, and the system was modified for the
ADCOM mission during 1977. ADCOM accepted PARCS from
the Army on 3 October 1977. The system had some unique
characteristics, but added little to the command's total
capabilities: it provided only marginal ICBM warning
benefits, and the radar's ICBM data would only reconfirm
attack characterization data from other existing and ■
planned systems. Site Operations and Maintenance costs
were also high. As late as December 197$ the 'Command
went on record as reaffirming it had no future require-
ment for the system."
¥
mander of 'A"FSC", v GeireT3l~A:'ir." Slay, notified General-" !
Allen in early January 1979 that he' and General rHill had
reviewed plans for EPARCS and they had concluded its
location limited its ability to provide adequate warning
of low angle trajectory ICBM reentry vehicles, and its
relatively high acquisition and support costs did not
justify its' use for the interim until BMEWSwasviiodern-
v ized. They therefore recommended it Jje^cancelled " ..; '. .'
as it^oes^hoFar^ff^tTKpTese'htra goo"dTetSrn^)'if , lr? ; ***
vestment. "46 General Allen replied on 10 March 'that
after a "thorough scrub of the EPARCS program . . . /jinc[7
in light of- this evaluation as well- as the strategic,
political, and technical factors, I have concluded that
we- should go ahead with the program. "47 AFSC then said
it would accelerate efforts to conclude the design con-
figuration' phase cf the projec 1 t_b£jJay..andjttenj : rdti i
ate the procu rement
f the project
t_phase_J8. ]
Earlier, in December 1978, ESD
had briefed. the AFSC staff and HQ USAP representatives
on the concept definition phase of EPARCS (a contract
with Bell Telephone Labs for $2 million) , and the up-
coming acquisition and modification phase (Phase II) ,
projected to cost $27.8 million and take 23 months to
complete, 50 Since only $15 million was available -for
this phase, AFSC directed the program office to prepare
a plan which fit that amount. Work ceased temporarily
while AFSC awaited Air Staff reaction to its recommen-
dation to terminate EPARCS, but with the early March
direction to proceed, AFSC directed the project office to
prepare such a program. 51 HQ USAF subsequently requested
the final configuration be pursued in three phases to
make it compatibkjtilh^jjfflal^f_EX^O-and-F- M l budg et.
requests ii _ . ■ — "
H
TlQUSATTeplTeTwith assurance that the $20
Million program would contain all the features ADCOM
had identified. 54
The EPAKCS program briefed to USAF 17 May and
reflected in a change to the Air Force Program Manage-
ment Directive for. the system in early June called for
^aiJljJoBiniontdesignrJOTCOsfeprogramvtPhasewII). for.«the.- ,'■• •
■ v basic work of extending the range of PARCS, and a $5
'million option for- enhancements. Two million had been
spent on the contract definition phase. Total cost then
was $20 million. 55 In September, the' Bell Telephone Labs
was awarded' a contract for Phase 11.56 The PMD called
for the work to be completed by December 1980. This
schedulejseemed threatened in early 1980 by a delay in
the release by the Congress of $5 Billion appropriated
in FY-80.S7
Defense Su pport Program
LI
'Sfl
Ground Processing Stations.
«•**!»?«*■ •*■'•"' "t"*j ■* *
k
im^m:^
~~~*~^-he MPF was used for analysis, training, and
software aevelopaent and testing, it would receive «
antenna
The OSM would be converted froi a losistks
r
CHAPTER III
SPACE
Space Detection and Tracking System fSPADATS)
The SPADATS mission during 1979
remained to detect, 'track, identify, and catalog all man-
made objects in space (see chart, p iol), to provide sensor
intonation on foreign space activity to CINCNORAD, and
to support other Canadian and U.S. space agencies as re-
quired. It consisted of a world-wide network of dedicated,
collateral,; and contributing sensors (see map and list
' . ; of sensors&viollowing pages).;/ Dedicated sensors were '-=
;those*with?a;pr.imary mission. of 'SPADATS support, collateral
"sensor's 'were* thise.'MRAD sensors whose primary mission was
other than' SPADATS ,' and contributing sensors were non-NORAD-
military and ^civilian sensors which were under- contract or
agreement for; pmjtime support of SPADATS. There were only
two changes 'in' the ; lineup of sensors during theyear. The
missile and "satellite tracking system at TUStOG Det S,
Diyarbakir, Turkey, which had resumed 24-hour operations
on 24 November 1973 after being down for more than three
years, was designated, along with the Cobra Dane radar at
.Shemya, Alaska,- asSa-multi-aission sensor (intelligence,
i Jpissile^aj^g^^^d A SPACETEACK). > .. i »J.t.therefore t iecame-a - ,^™
collateraT/jrather than a dedicated SPADATS sensor. 1 Also,
on 29 August 'the Maui, Hawaii, Optical Tracking and
Identification Facility (KOTI?) was transferred from the
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to ABCOM. There-
after, its status was as a dedicated USAF SPACF.TP.ACX sensor
'rather than a contributing sensor.
f 'r, A I
Operating Location AA (OUA) of the 46 AERODW was activated
1 April 1979 to operate the site. Upon implementation of the
ADCOM reorganijation the unit was transferred to SAC. 5
Planned Improvements j
The Pacific Radar Barrier (PACBAR),
THE NORAD SPACE DETECTION AND TRACKING SYSTEM (SPADATS)
1979 !
Site
Cheyenne Mountaii
CO
Cold Lake, Alberta
(SATTD)
St Margarets, New
Brunswick (SITU)
Dahlgren, VA and 8
southern U.S.
sites fron CA 'to GA
NORAD/ADCOM CoitibatjOperations
Center , -f ■
Canadian Forces | -
U.S. Navy, Space Surveillance
System t»AVSPASD5) k
. Z' Equipjent
' Space Computation Center
. Baker-Nunn Optical Sensor
Ba'ke'r-Nunn and 24" SOI
Telescope
^Computational Center,
^-.^transmitters and
C"i receivers
USAF SPACETRACK SYSTEM DEDICATED SENSORS?
Edwards AFB, CA
Sand Isl, Johnston
Atoll
San Vito AS, Italy
Mt John, New Zealand^
Maui, Hawaii
Bendix Field Engineering
Corp and Joseph- Nunn.
Associates (con-
tractors)
OLLA, 46 AERODW
CONTRIBUTING SENSORS
Air Force Eastern test R;
(AFETR) I
AFETR '
Air' Force Western Test
Range (AFNTR) ■ J,-
Pacific Missile Range ,
Millstone Hill, MA ■ MIT Lincoln -Laboratory
White Sands, NM , MIT. Lincoln- Laboratory
:: Baker-Nunn Optical Sensors
;'.;(teiescope-caniera space
.^observation system)
' Maui Optical Tracking and
"".Identification Facility
-, ■_■ (MOTIF) (Electro-optical)
FPQ-1S Tracking Radar
FPQ-'l4 Tracking Radar
,.FPQ-14 Tracking Radar
; .Tracking Radar
!-Tra'chng Radar
" GEODSS ' Optical Sensor proto-
type, model
Cloudcroft, NM
Malabar, FL
SAMSO
AFETR
Optical Sensor
Optical Sensor
The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory network of 11 Baker-Nunn caaeras and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 'also, provided data.
Pirinclik CDI, Diyar-
bakir, Turkey
Sheaya AFB, Alaska
Clear AFS, AK
Thule AB, Greenland .
Fylingdales, U.K.
Eglin AFB, FL
SOURCE: NORAD Forces
(Material used unclas
COUATERIAL SENSORS
f ■
19th Surveillance; Squadron
(TUSLOG Bet 8)f
16th Surveillance Squadron
Ballistic Missile^ Early
Karning System .(BMEWS)
BMESS '
{ '
BMEWS |.:
20thMsl Wrn Sq, SLBM Urn
Systea, AlternateiSCC
■ ' -K
Periaeter Acquisition Radar
Attack Charactemation
Systea (PARCS)'j- •
Defense Support Program
■ $-.
and Program Change Summary (S-l
;ified). , | ; ■ -
AN/FPS-17 and.AN/FPS-79
FPS-17 Detection Radar
(ceased operation
1 August 1977)
FPS-80 TR (ceased)
■ operation 1 August
1977)
FPS-108 Phased Array
Radar (IOC achieved
13 July 1977)
1 FPS-50, 1 FPS-92
1 FPS-50 Detection Radar,
1 FPS-49 TR
_3.FPS-49 TRs
FPS-8S Phased Array Radar
.." and peripheral data
. processing equipment
PhasedArray Radar (FPQ-14)
SPACE OBjjJCT DATA . .
Objects launches' Pay- ,11.5. 'Paf- USSR Pay-' -'Other ^Objects Net Gain Over
Catalogued' I; loads loads! loads Nations Decayed Previous Vear
1974
579" .
. ^ ;l06
; 122 ;
." J-.
91
.,■.,11 ,„/.,
13!
1975
929'
'''125,
.; isi ■
■28 f,
109
"':i4X"'
431
1976
1,117
'. ? 28
'.. 161
; 32 §
■ 122
;":'- 7 £'V.-
445
1977
902
' 124
; 136 .
'19 h
' 105' -
1 u ~~~~~~
523
37S
1978
629
; .' 124 ' .
; 161 .
30' *:.
119
"12 ;■■";
520
109
1979
474'.
, ''106 .
; 123 .
it
101
..' 5V " i:
543
75 (net 1
SOURCE: Ltr, Lt Col T.J. O'TWurlee,' CI Te'cfMa' 5 Systems-BivfiNCOC, to'flq NORAD/
PAM, "Jafontiation on 1979 Space Activities," 4 Jan 80 -.(Doc 261).
i ^7 . . In 1978 the U.S. Navy Commun'cations .
Station, at San Miguel, in the Philippines, had wen '
selected as the best site for location of the AN/GPS-10
radar which would constitute the western sector of
PACBAR. The radar had been in storage at Clark AB
since being removed froi Thailand in 1976. Efforts to
,''gainf'approval,-for the installation were protracted ini-
tially .when' .the,.issue was included in the base rights
agreement being -negotiated between the two governments,
but by late, 1978 the Air Force was successful in 'setting
,it_removed,froti;the larger issue, f ]
H
j By~the end of the year
• a plan presented by General Electric, .builder, of the
GPS-10, for reinstallation of the radar had been agreed
tt-by ADCOM'and Hq USAF, and a woik schedule concurred in.
advised Hq PACAFthat the San Miguel site was the only
acceptable one and requested;it' to ask' Commander in Chief,
Pacific (PACOM) to; insure that the necessary negotiations
between the U.S. Embassy in Manila and the Philippine
government were completed. 5 Although PACAF urged that
host country^coordiriation be completed by June, Hq USAF
wanted authority to proceed iE_Ltitods_by March.,", . .
i,oJie_tPBS.isteni_Kilb-Ihe..u - frl " directed 7
by the SecDef .','.. Air, Force^saiTalso that 'theTanticipated
ADC0M. reorganization' shouldnot delay the negotiations.
The Philippines should be 'told that if the realignment went
through, SAC would be the resource manager of the site, but
. the radar would support missions under CINCNORAD/CINCAD's
operational control." .The USB 'and PACOM' raised certain
questions, however, regarding electromagnetic compatibility
(EMC) of the radar with communications equipment operated
by the Navy and about protection against possible radiation
hazards' in the area of the radar. PACOM said it had no
record of a USAF/USN analysis of the EMC hazard at San Miguel,
and so it held negotiations in abeyance until one was
concluded.'? Although a draft menu of agreement was
■ coordinated by ADCOM in late April, the memo did not
become official until 17 August. The Air Force agreed
to install mechanical devices on the GPS-10 which would
prevent electromagnetic interference with Navy communi-
cations equipment, and it would be responsible for
identifying any radiation hazard zones relating to the
radar and providing the necessary protection, ' At the
end of 1979 there remained only the task oracquiring
approval from the armed forces of the Philippines and
the Government of the Philippines . in order to proceed
■ with the contract for relocation of.the radar, but. they '
, had not, jet been*. approached. by the Air.Staf,fiK^.!^jj|ij^fe'-
i , *J''» ' jJhe radar installation*^ Swajalein';"''
Atoll , the .eastern .-ancuor of -.PACBAR,.: encountered .mtgij^BSSs 1
politicalj.but 'funding >problems,\,Jreparattons,b|j\:ontrac- ,'"'
i'tots ■.engagedioy; thel^S. 'Army; in' anticipatron^oiSwiW^flJ
', ing the iAEPAilongiRaSge" Tracking and; In ; strnientltisp!ladar|s*'
(ALTAIRjfon Kwajaleili to function as a SPADATS sehsof^'gj:
had been-halted in 1 October 1978 when FY-79 funds were ; J.: '":'
frozen by the Office on the Undersecretary of .Defense,*; v
■Research and Engineering. Responsive to the concerns 'of (:.-■
Mr. Robert jYost.'ofsthat. office, .on 6 April;,1979;'-M'COlWk»j
ESD.,^S^Oj¥ffld;Uiajto;uboratoiy'bii»fediiij^^JilR's'* '
^duai^pabilitiesws^eep'^p'a'ce'^sensor'f^
'.PACBAR sens'or.'TThe OSD subsequently released'aodification-
funds early June ($1.1 million .in FY-79 money):;'. GTE'" i S''.'.'-;.-
Sylvania, with the assistance of Lincoln laboratory,, would
modify the radar. When the work was completed, estimated -.
in September 1981, the U.S. Amy would operate the radar in
support of ..Western Test Range launches and in response to ^
ADCOM's high and, low altitude space tasking. -f.^ - ^'K^;./^..
' Ground-Based Electro -Optical 'Deep Space System . ' ■■'
GEOOSS offered near. term improvement in deep space :
detection and tracking. Plans called for. a network
of five sites--one in the U.S. and four -overseas—located
' at roughly -equal intervals around the globe. Each site
would use 3 telescopes, TV cameras, a digital computer,
and related electronic and communications equipment, With
near real time equatorial coverage- at geosynchronous, it ■
promised .substantial improvement over the 20 year old- Baker-' .
Nunn cameras, the system it would replace, like the Baker-
(iunn system, however, GEODSS' operations would be confined to
Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991
inc., 1101 King StreeJ, Alexandra. Virginia 22354
1946-1991 pi
isd. assembled, and in
Security Archive, a non-profit. Washington, D.C. based research insiriuteand library. Hie microfiche
collection is accompanied by Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991 Guide and Index.
Arrangement of Information on the Microfiche:
file documents are arranged in chronological order. A unique identification number is assigned to
iv document begins a new line on the microfiche.
Document Quality:
The qualify of the original material varies. In the case of each document. Chadwyck-Healey Inc. has
filmed the best copy made arable by the National Security Archive.
Microfiche Numbering:
The unique identification (lumbers assigned loihe documents are listed in the top right hand comer
of the microfiche i&e skip.
Technical Data:
Producing Laboratory; Chadwyck-Healey Inc.
Date of Publication of Microfiche Edition: 1991
Format: 49 frame, 1 05mm x 148mm silver haiide microfiche, 24x nominal reduction
The arrangement of the pages on microfiche is the property of Chadwyck-Healey Inc. Paper Copies
of She arrangement of pages on microfiche maybe made without the written permission of
Chadwyck-Healey inc. for internal and reference use only and not for resale.
Distribution
Chadwyck-Healey Ltd.. '
Document Quality:
Through the use of the Freedom of Information Act and an extensive network of government, media,
and academiccontacts, foe National Security Archive has developed this varied collection of primary
materials. Just as the type of materials included varies, so does the quality of each document.
quality, most complete copy available of each document. Chadwyck-Hsaley Inc. has faithfully
ManyoMhedocumentsincluded inihis publication were prevtouslyclassffiedbyiheU.S, Government
and even when declassified, sections or pages may be ooiiterated by the government due to !he
potentially sensitive information contained in them.
The variety of material reproduced in this publication includes photocopies or poor carbon copies of
press reports. This variety can preseRtdifficuBiesof imageandcontrastw/hich the mostcafeftjiflming
and processing cannot entirely overcome.
have been produced to the highest quality and conform to AIIM, BSI and ANSi standards.
times when the camera was in darkness and the object
viewed was illuminated by sunlight, and when there was
no cloud cover. Only a future space-based sensor would
not be so limited.
The COWS GEODSS location, at
Stallion, New Mexico, was established as an experimental
test site (ETS) in 1975 for development by MIT/Lincoln
Laboratory of system technology. ADCOM personnel, or-
ganised as an operating location of the 26th Air Defense
Squadron, began manning the facility in 1977 to train,
provide interim operation of test sensors, and to develop
operating' procedures for use at future sites. On 15 Hay
1978 Thonpson-Ramo J tJoolridge (TW) Corporation -was ■
awarded a contract for three GEODSS sites and on option ■
to build two more. - Equipment, installation, and. testing
for .three sites would cost $33.04 million; the cost of -
five sites (to include operations and maintenance through
the first quarter of FY-83) would be-$62 million. TM's
efforts to date in the design and management of the
operational GEODSS had been, in ADCOM's estimation, very
satisfactory. No problems threatened the planned turn-
over date of April 1981 for the Hew Mexico site. The
second and third sites, in South Korea (near Taegu), and-
. on the island of Maui, Hawaii, were planned for turnover
,Jinjuly„19,81 ,and Janaary, 19J2,,* T J haj.,schedule„ a,lso t iej,
in'ed firm.^ The "fourth and'fifth sites, on the other
hand, presented substantial problems of site_location. and
this, tended, -injurn. to .del-ay fundihe. f"
*l
* Maui had earlier been the fourth site and Morocco'the
third, but they were switched in early 1979 when Moroccan
approval was delayed.
i/\
SIC, wao acquired resource manageoent respon- " r
"Sibility for tie system from ADCOH on 1 Decesber as a result ■ ,
of the reorganisation, reconaended tie island of Diego
.Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, as the fifth site, IS
„;. :.'.x>m- '"-~<-:jr. - "Splat's ML v /»/■ ■■ . -f-
• ■ -* ;:;..-.Jhe.-SationaliiAeronautic5 and Space Atain'istration's
Skylab.san'tbjbitalvworbhop'.Isas launched 14 Hay 1973.- Dm- '
-i rng the&ext.,year'»t.tosted,several astrmuut-teajs.- By
■.■e«il)T..19^43(UBiits^cSS#l8J.-61ijectives had leenlcoipleted
and the^tationVsasj-abandoned-.lo NASA expected 'tie 77.5 ton
satellite: to rcBainZal'ofttiintil 1983,. but greater than pre--
dieted sunspot activity,' which caused the earth's outer
ataosphere to expand and slow down orbiting objects, speeded
up the. decay of .Skylabis=j>rMt., NASA prepared plans to have
I an;aititjaut*Jrpa|jhel^e|shuttle attach rockets to
iV§MitejWfe°^t';|hffi5^^^
•.er orbittand-pTeservedfa-libilellongerjliut the'=shuttle pro-
.gram:wES-'aelayed*aid»%lab}couldn't wait:17-l'In-August 1977,
KORAD, at the request of NASA's Marshall SpacVFlight Center,
perforoed ah independent lifetime expectancy study on Skylab
and predicted it would reenter the Earth's atmosphere between
June 1979 and April 1980. NASA's efforts to reposition the
vehicle tofreduce .drag Were not very successful, and the .
space station sunk closer- tti Earth. 18 SASA calculated 38 -f
large parts totaling about 40,000 pounds Bight survive re- *
entry. The largest piece weighed 5,000 pounds. I 9 NASA and •
the Air Force emphasized the stall odds of 'such debris strik-
ing or killing anyone. An official news release stated: "The
area over, which Skylab is orbiting is approximately 75 per-
cent water and 98 percent of the land mass has less than one
person per acre. "20 The area lay between 50 degrees north
latitude and 50 degrees south latitude, looking at it a
■ different way, one magazine calculated 90 percent of the '
world's population lived between those latitudes and were
thus in Skylab's path.21 By February 1979, NORAD's decay
prediction had been narrowed to between April and September. 22
While the media grew increasingly speculative about
the possible consequences of SJcylab's fall, and public inter-
est in the event heightened and sometimes took curious forms
of expression, 23 NASA began its preparation by conducting two
exercises simulating Skylab's entry. One, in April, used the
actual reentry of a Soviet rocket body; and the other, in
June, was a pure Skylab simulation. They tested the readi-
ness of all in NASA and the ttffl who would be involved in the
real event. 2 * NASA, by agreement with the DOD and interested
civilian agencies, would be the overall controlling agency
for Skylab decay. Besides NORAD tracking and impact pre-.. .^
.diction reports, tie JBD. would provide logistics, 'itranspo'f-.-s|
tation, medical, engineering, and communications. support -'t^-r
should it be called upon.^ s The JCS requested NORAD support
NASA with reentry .predictions in'.the same manner it had for
• COSMOS ,954', the '.Soviet satellite'which had impacted in Canada .
in early 1978.26 'cThe : Space Defense Center could call upon
NORM'S regular Space Detection and Tracking Systea (SPADATS) .
and other DOD and NASA radars would be available as reentry
tiae drew near. NORAD Satellite Situation Reports (NSSR)
were issued on a weekly basis beginning S April, and a week '
before entry they were. issued daily. The S April NSSR said ;
there was a SO percent probability of Skylab decaying be- - ■
«tweendOJune'5nd»13-^Tulyp>and«arfO»p'ercent"chance*it T wouU^»«
decay by 22 June. 27 On 20 June NASA reoriented Skylab into
a sideways position to provide more stability as it neared
reentry, and to perait last minute course changes if inhab-
ited areas seemed threatened. The lab's decay was also
accelerated because of the increased drag that altitude
create'd. NORAD now predicted 90 percent chance Skylab would
decay between 10 July and 20 July, with a 50 percent chance ^
it would decay by 15 July. 28 T-
As reentry time drew near, SPADATS was augmented
by other DOD and NASA systems, and even four French sites. •
Twenty eight sites in all provided over 300 observations a
day. Eleven hours before reentry the Space Defense Center
issued a prediction (plus or minus two and one-half hours)
which indicated the satellite impact area could be in eastern
North America rather than in the Atlantic Ocean as earlier
predicted. 29 NASA then ordered the on-board computer to
fire the craft's small maneuvering rockets, putting the
vehicle into a tumbling motion. This would reduce drag and
put the impact point back out in the ocean.-" Based on cal-
culations with the vehicle in its new attitude, the Space
Defense Center six hour calculation placed splash down in
the North Atlantic: but the margin of error was still 72
minutes or plus or minus 207,000 miles. 3 ! the one hour
prediction had the satellite breaking up south of Africa in
the Indian Ocean at 1626Z, 11 July, plus or minus 26% min-
utes or 8,000 miles.32 0a its 34,981st and final orbit
Skylab moved out of the Pacific, passing over Seattle,
Washington; sped over the 'northern part of the U.S.; moved
out over the Atlantic; and took a path between Korth and
South America and Europe and Africa, NASA's Bermuda track-
ing station reported the lab still intact. Ascension Island,
, -in the Atlantic";south of the Equator, then acquired the : - ^
.jitraclr' and- followed it as the satellite raved around the
*■ : .southern- tip .of 'Africa into the Indian Ocean. 'The lab had
proved surprisingly durable, but it was now descending
rapidly, 3 j;. ! Glowing with the heat of reentry,' Skylab moved
; -•awaysfxoiii?the;-t'ip of Africa and its major predicted impact
'pointTsnthtloser to Australia. Ascension reported it had
lost the signal, then a H0EAD sensor reported debris" falling
in the Indian" Ocean, southwest of Australia, and moments la-
ter 'visual sighting began to come into the Space Defense
Center and NASA. Perhaps ti^ sost graphic description came
, from _an air line pilot flying northeast of Perth: "We saw ■
«hatSre* believe was the reentry of jour Skylab. . . It had
lights and^"-"dlstin'ct-blue*growftlmbsnike 'aircraft "head-**" *
lights. I had the impression it had a boic shape. As it
descended further it changed from a bright blue to an almost
orangey red and you would see the break-up starting to occur
... As the break-up continued, it finished up as a very
bright orange ball in the front end and remainder in the
behind giving off sparks and you could almost detect the
metal or whatever was falling down to earth. It has a very >
long tail, perhaps several 100 miles long.' 1 ?* Official con-'
'firaation that Skylab. was down came when radars in the Paci-
fic, 'in North Dakota and Virginia failed to pick up the
satellite. N0RAD then provided NASA its last tracking and
impact prediction that Skylab decayed in the earth's atmos-
phere over the Indian Ocean and southwest Australia at 1637
Zulu time, creating a corridor 1,200 miles long and 100 miles
wide. Debris from the shattered satellite which survived re-
entry fell within that footprint. 35 Parts which fell on land
came down in the Australian Outback, one of the most sparsely
populated regions on Earth. For a brief time such strange
sounding places as Mgoorie, Ballandonia, Rawlinna, and
Noondoonia were prominent in the news; but the falling debris
caused no loss of life or injury and only negligible property
damage. 56 Skylab decayed within 11 minutes of the time
predicted by the Space Defense Center's Reentry Working
Group in its estimate Bade one hour before reentry. The
precision and accuracy of the Group's decay prediction
work was recognized by NASA, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Chief of Staff, USAF. Tangible recognition came
to Lt Col Terence J. O'Rourke and Major Thomas J. Cross
, when they were awarded the HASA Exceptional Service Medal
.■ later in the year. 3?
The Issue of "Blu e Suit" Launch
The 10th Aerospace Defens-; Squadron
(AERODS), Vahdenberg AFB,. California,, had the. mission of
p launching - military- weather^satellites |in 'the: Defense Meteor- "
lological Satellite Program (DMSP),:^' .;-■■ ■ ><>*-, -;,
k\-
_ iADCOH FooJc pnae in tne perioraance sttot ■
'Force's only "blue suit" launch teas, and ttas anxious to
identify future missions for tie unit, -perhaps in connec-
tion with the antisatellite program.™ Developments during
1979 made it certain that if the Air-Force; choie'to main-
tain a"blue suit" launch team -in'the 'future, ?an uncertain
-prospect^itt«uld"functioni'under«the : iaegis*of!'SAO?and-not-«""
) In 1S78 it had been determined
that the weight growth of future DMSP. satellites would not
permit their being launched by the Thor missile. SAHSO had
recommended .the program be switched to bigger ATLAS" boosters
launched by a contractor team, ADCOM opposed. such a move ..
for several reasons, perhaps the most Significant 'of which ' : ;
was the threat it posed to the mission of 10th AERODS.
Generals Hill and Slay (A?SC commander) apparently resolved ■
the issue to ADCOM's satisfaction and it was agreed DMSP
would continue to be launched using Thor until the Space
Shuttle took-over the satellite's mission.^ Anxious that
the squadron's authority in such matters not be diluted,
General Hill responded with concern to Lieutenant General
R.C. Henry upon learning in early 1979 that the SAMSO
commander had directed the 6595th Space Test Group be the
single SAMSO connection with the 10th AERODS on DMSP matters.
Since such direction seemed to prevent the squadron's com-
mander from working directly with SAMSO program officers
and contractors, and is effect removed him from the decision-
Esfcisg process, General Hill thought SAMSO and ADCOM should
review the existing memo of agreement between them regarding
DMSP and asked for a meeting in late March. 42 Such a meeting
was preempted, in effect, by a gathering of ADCOM and AFSC
representatives on 17 April, one which SAMSO declined to at-
tend. Jurisdictional issues and command perogatives were
discussed at length, and agreement was reached that better
communications between the two commands was needed, but no
action was taken to better define the responsibilities of
each in running space launch services.*' ADCOM and SAMSO
did not meet to consider a new MOA, but the ADCOM DCS Oper-
ations and. SAMSO Vice Commander agreed the 8 November 1977 „:.;
MOA woBld«aain in effect until, it could be revised landti'^at
agreed upon. 44 '. ,' '.>.' '•"< -.■'-. ■<■■'?.'■•;*■;> '■.".-.'.'" , ; ^ti*
; ■ :y'. ';• •- ' Another prece ived t hreat .to the, con-,:
tfnuaiice 'of .a ."blue- suit'^-launch capability; arrived in March
in the formjof a revised Program Management Directive for ~ i '
DMSP, replacing one dated 7 November 1977.'- Deleted was the' '
requirement that military 'personnel conduct launch and or- "
bital operations. Also, AFSC was given joint responsibil-
ity, with ADCOM, for field check out and launch of DMSP
satellites, thus further complicating, in ADCOM's opinion,.
issues of. jurisdiction 'and coraaand perogatives,:,. Fueling • .";•..
^.ABCOMJs^onc'erE,was«dfaection*in«the:.flew*PMD>:foridevelopn!en|,i.;
of two advanced new DMSP sensors.. Earlier 'discussions about
these heavier satellites in late 197S had caused SAMSO to'
recommend, transfer of DMSP operations to contractor operated
ATLAS E/F launchers. 4 5 ADCOM told Hq, OSAF that it considered
' these changes "detrimental to the Air Force space launch ,
mission. "4.6 Hq USAF continued to consider several, options
and on 103uly the Directorate of Space, DCS Research and , .
Development asked AFSC and ADCOM to identify any advantages?-'
and disadvantages, other than cost, of transferring DMSP to
the ATLAS launch vehicle, 47 ADCOM's lengthly reply addressed"
pros and cons of the issue, but went into some detail on what
the command believed was the real issue; whether or not the
Air Force ^needed to retain a military space launch capability.
ADCOM recalled that twice before a conscious decision had
been made to "retain it: in 1375 when the prototype ASAT
Program 437L was terminated, and again in late 1978 when
General Slay and Hill had agreed the DMSP program baseline
would be maintained and no more sensors would be added until
DMSP transitioned to the Space Shuttle. ADCOM also emphasized
that the Air Force, in AFM 26-1, had tied together space
policy and military operations for space launch and space
defense, and had directed use of military personnel in com-
bat, and direct support; thus national and military poli-
cies had established the requirement for military involve-
ment in space. ' Present and possible future missions for
10th AERODS wer- discussed. Recognising the advantage of
■ satellite growtn potential offered bv using the ATLAS,
ADCOM still believed the loss of "blue suit" launch capa-
bility with DMSP (unless other missions were assigned),
and total dependence upon aerospace contractors, to be of
more serious consequence. ADCOM recommended to Hq USAF
that the status quo be continued, i.e., continuance of DMSP/
Thor operations to maintain a military space launch capa-
bility and. toj guarantee its existence until DMSP transi-
, -timed to the. Space Shuttle. 48 _■_ , .
. No decision was immediately forthcoming, and in
accordance -with provisions-' of the ADCOM reorganization on -
1 November 1979 the 10th AERODS was inactivated and' its--
assets and people integrated with those of the'394 Test
Maintenance Squadron, First Strategic Aerospace Division,
SAC, at Vandenberg AFB.** It is not appropriate to spec-
ulate here on what position that command will take with .
regard to the. issues surrounding Thor- versus ATLAS for the
launch'of J)MSP,saad , ,the most, basic -issue of continuing! to •.:■
,,main^inia,5ii5ltaiy y Iaunch- : team. i£er-tainly the -issues hadi*--
been defined;-during 1979, but no progress was made .toward
their solution. Late in the year the DMSP Systems Program
Office of AFSC's Space Division briefed the ADCOM staff on
an acoustics problem which had developed with Thor boosters
caused by the growth of the satellites weight and the addi-
tional thrust. required to put it into orbit. Of the five
options offered for its correction, only one, launching DMSP
from ATLAS and 'deactivating the ''blue suit" launch capabili-
ty represented a cost savings.* 5 " General Hill wrote the
AFSC commander, General Slay, that while he understood the -
Others would redesign and requalify the satellite
and continue launching it on Thor; modify the Thor satellite
launch complex (SLC-10W and stay on Thor; move the operation
to SLC-2K and stay on Thor; and launch DMSP on ATLAS at SLC-3
but still maintain a blue suit launch capability).
technical problem of satellite weight growth hadnecessi-
tated a search for alternatives, he thought such an
endeavor should not be linked with the issue of continu-
ing a "blue suit" launch capability. He reminded General
Slay of their mutual efforts during' the previous, fall to
disentangle the two questions. Hill's position remained
as follows: 51
■ "I continue to firmly believe that it is in
the Air Force interest, as we enter the
decade of the '80s, to maintain a 'blue
suit' launch capability. But, at the sane
time; I as not 'hart over' on that capabil-
. i "itjr;belng exclusively tied to Thor DMSP^. -1~
support. :|.Thefe may" well be other missions "(I-*. .■ ;- -
that offer a better payoff for using this- 1 : ' ' ' :
'blue istiit' talent; we should loot at this .
now and proceed to make it happen," ..- ..-■ ■. ,
Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC)
Once they were in orbit, all U.S. military satel--
' lites were monitored and controlled by the Satellite Test ,_ .'. ■
Center, a part of the Air Force 'Satellite Control .Facility,. .
Sunnyvale,. California, a subordinate organisation of Space -
\"andiMissik*Systeiis«CTganization*(SAMSO)'^of6th'eV'c<in I ^°' wll *f
t'rol cente'f~exlsted which could, assume jts -fimctlonSj/and;, . '-"
'■ so loss o'f'the Sunnyvale" Facility would result 'in an '■ ■"' "■
'eventual loss-of control over-O. space systems. ■: "By ■■. ■ •
.early 1979, therefore, the Air- Force had approved- another
"Control center, it had been budgeted for, and- initial site"
surveys had been made. Plans called for construction to ■
begin in FY 81, with achievement of an initial -operating-, in-
capability in June 1984. 54 "'■_.-. ■ f?
"" - Air Force surveys -eventually con-"
sidered 12 possible locations for the facility which would'"
.house the. Consolidated Satellite. Operations''- Center (SOC). ■
(the new name!for the Satellite Control Facility) and the-
Shuttle Operations and Planning Center (SOPC).; Peterson-
AFB was -among those surveyed, but its lack of land for the
facility and expansion potential;' primarily, prevented it .
from being favorably considered.*" Kirtland AFB, New
Mexico, was the location recommended to Undersecretary
of the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark in the middle of May 1979,
Dr. Mark reportedly felt that the nature of the siting
criteria used prevented a clear choice of Kirtland or any
other sites surveyed. He asked that the criteria be re-
examined and that consideration be given to consolidating
three space control facilities--the SOC, the SOPC, and the
NAVSTAR Global Positioning System Control Center ,8 --into
one Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) . In con-
sideration of Dr. Mart's guidance, AFSC tasked SAMSO to
make another review. 54 Four principal candidates emerged
by early July: Kirtland, Luke, Malmstrom, and Peterson
AFBs.SS Subsequently, TAC's concerns about the effect on
its training mission at Luke AFB of locating .the CSOC there ,
resulted in its removal from consideration. ■ Then. there were
three. 56 . ■ . . ' • . - •'
Conceptual operational planning for the; CSOC pro-
ceeded 'concurrently with, base surveytefforts'.vln'.'th'e mid-
dle of June, . Dr. Mark asked the Air Force for a concept 6£
operations for the CSOC. Prepared within the'' month by a '
joint group consisting of Hq USAF, ADCOM, SAC, and SAMSO
representatives, ^ the "CSOC Operations Management Concept"
listed the three control functions to be performed:^
^OP'cr w Priiffiry J control*of^huttle for national*"
security missions (military and intelligence),
*'"' Survey "guidelines specified the facility would'be
placed on government land, and Peterson did not have suffi-
cient land. available for the initial facility or for pos- '
. sible growth. In addition, base facilities were judged in-
sufficient. Also, a potential hazard would exist if the
facility were placed-on Peterson. because electromagnetic
radiation (EHR) emanations from its antennas could affect .
military and. civilian aircraft landing nea'rby.
** ' NAVSTAR GPS, under development in 1979, would be
a network 'of 24' satellites which would provide extremely
precise positioning and navigation information worldwide to
both U.S. military and civilian agencies such as FAA. SAC
was expected to put the system into operation in 1987.
Would perform flight planning, training,
readiness, command and control as the pri-
mary facility. Back-up capability for
national security missions would be through
the Controlled Security Mode at Johnson
Space Center.
SOC: Primary control of operational mili-
tary satellites and compatible with the
Satellite Test Center (STC) at Sunnyvale,
California,- to provide back-up capability.
The STC would be the primary control faci-
lity for R5D military satellites.
GPS ,NCC:,, Would : be, the mission control' ;.
■...'centerJinltheiSOC^ortion of.the CSCO '.
for?coitrbl: of -GPS satellites. .'"•■"
According to,, the .Management; Concept, NORAD/ADCOM's Space
Defense OperationsVCenter'?(SPAI)0C).wpuld link the CSOC and"
other space useTs. (federal, agencies' and owners of commer- ■
cial satellites).
j In its efforts to influence the bas-
ing decision in favor. of Colorado Springs, ADCOM emphasized
the future operationaUand :long:iterm cost benefits -of having
-. the CSOC-inipjmimiw'to^,he,._SMpC.' I-4-felt..Jhe criterion!. -
^of'conside'fi^onlyTfe3erartan3-:for,the : .facility too. re-
strictive.;- and it emphasized to;AFSC and HqUSAF.-that about'
- '500, acres of land was' available east 'of Peterson AFB, 'far .■
. enough away- from the air traffic pattern" to" meet' EMR hazard
criteria,- which could be acquired at .about $600 to $700 an ■
acre. 59 Nonetheless, when the survey team visited the
three bases again in September to bring up to date data
collected earlier, the, result" was again favorable to Kirt-"'"
land AFB. Peterson met aost_ of.. the_ criteria, but. if the .
' facility .had'to be located oh federal land, the base was
still deficient in that regard. °0 Plans at the time called
for Dr. Mark to make his decision by late Semptember, and
public annpuncensent;»ould be made'. on 1" October, On 25
September' Dr. Mark, the .'Air Force Chief of Staff, the Vice
Chief of Staff reviewed the .latest survey, but no decision
was' made pending resolution of several questions raised in
the briefing. Most significantly, the Vice Chief of Staff
asked CINCAD to consider further the 'operational considera-
tions of the site selection. M General Hill replied that
location of the CSOC in Colorado Springs offered opera-
tional effectiveness through collocation and a supporting
organizational structure in the Cheyenne Mountain Complex.
Hill observed Kirtland had been preferred because existing
facilities were available and construction costs were low,
and added " - . . this conclusion was unfortunately devoid of
any operational considerations or long-term cost benefits,"
The, CINCAD examined at length the operational advantages of'
internetting and perhaps functionally integrating the soon-
to-be operational SPADOC and the future CSOC, together with
the growth potential such an arrangement would have, and con-
cluded these considerations outweighed the near-term cost
savings to be realized by placing'the facility at Kirtland.
He 'also noted that the CSOC Management Concept emphasized
close coordination between the SPADOC and CSOC, Thus if
both were in Colorado Springs, integrated operational plan-
ning would be enhanced, coordination. time minimized, and.-,.. -.
-decision making optimized." .General Hill' concluded:^ ■.■■.r r y*,:£
". . . the. location of the CSOC is a very
import ant /decision that goes well beyond _ .
" the initial analyses. ' Although communi-
cations technology could provide a measure
of connectivity between the SPADOC and
CSOC from any of the proposed locations,
the operational benefits I have described
can only be gained by selecting Peterson
over Kirtland or Malmstrom. Operational. . ■'
. factors,' including preserving growth v and r , i(v ^ _ ^^
"■' V ' org'anizat^ona!"op'tions,*'''iHust' weigh"'' lieavily^ ■»--****
on the final decision."
And they did.' Dr. Mark's 'decision, announced to
the public on 20 December, said the CSOC would be located
east of Colorado. Springs on one of three parcels of land
under consideration (two owned by the State of Colorado and
one privately); and he emphasized the "unique operational
adv;. tages" o£ having the new facility near the SPADOC,
■sinc«; '"As "our national 'dependence' on space for national
security increases, 2 joining of .the capability to control
our satellites with ability to detect hostile actions a-
gainst them will become increasingly important." 03 , If the
environmental impact analysis were favorable, no problems
developed in the acquisition of the land needed., and fund-
ing was not delayed, construction would start in FY 82 and
the IOC would be 1985. What organization would exercise
operational control over the CSOC had not yet been de-
cided, 64 Local reaction to the announcement was naturally
quite favorable. Newspapers underscored the uplifting ef-
feet the Center's reported 2,000 military and civilian ei- ■
ployees would have on the local economy, and one paper
carried it as one of the top ten local stories of 1979. '
Senator Hart and Representative Kramer, who with the rest
of Colorado delegation expressed satisfaction that their
efforts, had been successful, spoke of the military effect-
iveness and defense cost savings which would accrue as, a
result of the consolidation. 65 The Air Force was able to
make its choice on solid operational grounds, while at the
sane tiae it achieved a counterbalance to the closure of •
ADCOM and thus gave reassurance of a continued strong Air
Force presence in the area.
Space Defeasejjystai Planning
■ Space. Defense for' nt ifl3ffJi!IPi.ff.,fii&P!ifi),- ■ ' "'-
On 1 March Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I),'did indeed request the
Air Force prepare a plan by 1 April for establishing aSPADOC
by 1 July. It would be, Dr. Dinneen realised, only an ini-
tial 5PADQC with limited capabilities since it would be con-
stituted from existing ADCOM assests. It would grow as space
defense capabilities and systems reached their operational
state. 68 On 12 March, ftq USAF, in turn, directed ADCOM to
prepare an Implementation Plan. 69 Since, as mentioned,
work on such a plan had preceeded the request, a briefing
presenting basic philosophy, operations concept, location
of the facility, schedules, and maiming requirements was
quickly prepared and coordinated. The CINCAD approved the
implementation briefing in.-the middle of the months and on
29 March the Air Force Council' 'concurred. " Dr.', Dinneen
approved it 30 April. '* An activation plan followed in
July.? 2 . ■ ■ .
/JRPACEOW
Since the SPADOC would use 427M sys-
tem computer terminals, and that system was not scheduled to
achieve an equivalent operational capability until 30 July
1979, ADCOMplanned to begin limited SPA30C operations on
1 October in lieu of 1 July as suggested by n r , Dinneen.
That date was acceptable, and although the 427H EOC sub-
sequently slipped to 4 September, ADCOH was able to begin
Phase I SPADOC operations on 1 October. '3 Nine of the 18
authorised crew members were available on that date, and
by the end of the year a full complement of trained crews
was available." At the end of the year ADCOH staff sup-
pott of SPADOC focused on negotiations to establish formal >■
agreements with the owners and operators of U.S. military
and civil satellites and allied space systems.. Kien con-
cluded, those agreements would specify the type of isfonar
tion regarding satellite status which would be sent to the
SPADOC and the warning and attack verification information
which would be sent to the KMCC and satellite owners and
operators. SPADOC development would coincide with devel-
opment of an antisatellite system. Phase II, to begin in
1982, would support development, test, sad evaluation of an
air launched miniature vehicle (AM). Phase III, a year
later, would provide control of aa operational ALMV and
.otherj^ATs.^Ey,.the^ate.l?8ps J JPAl)0Cjfoul4.pro.y J ide,the„c3«
"'structure tying togetieFU'S'.' satellite wanting and attack
verification and negation of hostile satellites, "5
flntisatellite Proqram MU-Pufc
The
Soviets had tested an ASM as early as 1963. Between 1967 ■»■
and 1977 they conducted 25 possible satellite interceptor
tests, in 1977 two more, and in 1978 one. In early 1978
the Soviets were credited by ABCOM with the ability to ne-
gate low altitude U.S. space systems; and the Soviet Galosh
antiballistic missile system had a limited nuclear ASAT
capability, , ,
Renewed Soviet ASAT activity, however,
plus a growing reliance by the U.S. on space based systems
for a variety of military missions, and concerns expressed
by CINCAD encouraged the JCS to seek the support of Secretary
of Defease Brown for an operational ASAT. Although the pre*
ferred U.S. policy was to conclude an agreement with the
Soviet Union which would ban all ASAT activity, on 20
January 1978 Secretary Brown also directed the Undersecre-
tary of Defense for Research and Engineering to organize
a vigorous and comprehensive ASAT development program. A
subsequent JCS memo on 1 May specified a need for an inter-
im ASAT and suggested an IOC of 1983, Preliminary targets
identified included satellites performing electronic in-
telligence, photoreconnaissance, ocean surveillance, commu-
nications, navigation, and meteorology, " On 4 Hay 1978 the
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) established an
ASAT Task Force to analyze requirements.* Phase I of its
study, completed in late September, established general
. requirements. rPhase'II, began in early March 1979, looked
to the 1978-90. Soviet' space threat and its effect on U.S.
forces, and the 'effectiveness of various level of dollar
investment for'severart>ixes..of surveillance, command and
control, and satellite' negation. systems." As planned in
early 1979, the/negation part of the system was expected
to consist of an Air launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV), a
backup ground launched conventional vehicle (a missile with
a pellet warhead) , a ground based high energy laser system,
and an instrumented test vehicle (ITV) target to test ac-
curacy.
.■^-,^«.«s*«^^ ( aS,n St ->.«u«sAir..Eo.ice l Syste.!!S .Command develop-aw*
ment 'efforts during 1979 focused on the ALMV. The 55-pound
payload would be launched from an F-1S and a two stage roc-
ket would power it to altitudes up. to 600 nm, where it would
impact directly on the target satellite'. According to the
ASAT Program Management Directive of 19 June 1979, flight
tests were to begin in 1982 and an IOC was scheduled for
1985, A limited operating capability would follow the Ini-
tial Operation Test and Evaluation phase, using residual
research and development aircraft, missiles, miniature ve-
hicles, etc. In case the ALMV encountered development or
*£UJ The Study Grouo consisted of representatives from
MSA, DIA, JCS, Undersecretary of Defense (Policy), NSA (Re-
search and Engineering), Assistant SecDef (C5l), unified and
specified Commands and the services. Maj R, Vercruyse, ADCOM/
XPDSD, headed the Operations Requirements Working Croup.
test problems, plans called for a backup ground launched
system using the Spartan missile. This system would not
be pursued beyond the development phase, however, unless
the ALMV encountered difficulty. Lasers were the pre-
ferred future ASAT weapon. The Air Force Weapons Lab at
Kirtland AFS was developing technology for a ground based
..laser (GBL) which could negate a satellite. A GBL capa-
bility' was scheduled for demonstration in FY-84, withan
operational system shortly thereafter. The ITV, test tar-
get for the ASAT weapons systems, would he designed and
built by AVCO Systems Division. That company was awarded
a contract in Hay 1979, Its concept called for a 6.S foot
-balloon with a grid detection system to score hits and a
short range radar 'for near misses.'^
'■'■ , -'■''' ■" :'. . ' ' '":.%f: :
ADCOM's contribution during the .
formative stages of conceptual planning for ASAT was fo
define operational requirements. Its Systems Operational ..^
Concept for the ALMV, produced in early. 1979 and updated in''
July, made maximum use.of.existing organizations and commu-
nications systems, HcChord AFB, Washington, and C-riffiss '■•
AFB, NY, were tentatively selected as operational bases.
One squadron of F-15s at each base would have a dual air
defense-ASAT mission. CIKCAD's operational direction would
be exercised from a Mission Control Center in the Space }
Defense Operations Center ;(SPAD0C) in Cheyenne' Mountain, ' '■. , '
iand.goithroKgh^tKOjRegion Operations-iControl -Centers * ! (ROGGS);?»i
to the F-15 squadron." 'In another extensive planninjfe;f£of't *■'"' "
during 1979, ADCOM prepared a Statement of Operational Need-"
(SON) for a Space Defense Negation System. It brought. to-
gether into one document surveillance, command and control,
and negation requirements previously submitted over the
past two years in separate Required Operational Capability .
(ROC) documents. After coordination within the staff and ^
with interested MAJCOMs, the 'document was forwarded to Hq 'W' 1
USAF in December. 79 Also, responding to Hq USAF. and AFSC
requests for a description of required ALMV capabilities
during the period when it would have a limited operating
capability (roughly the period from FY-83, the end of
I0TSE, toTY-85, achievement of an IOC), ADCOM clarified
certain operational and support features of the prototype
system. Either AFSC or TAC F-ISs could be used, with main-
tenance provided by the owner. Maintenance of other equip-
ment would be the responsibility of the operating command.
After the reorganization of aerospace defense assets that
command would be SAC. Contractor support should be mini-
mized and concentrated on specialized equipment. The
■ Prototype Mission Operai ions Center (PMOC) should be lo-
cated in Cheyenne Mountain and manned by ADC personnel. It
would provide command and control of the system to include
mission planning and targeting. The Space Detection and
Tracking System (SPADATS) and the ADCOM Intelligence Center
would provide surveillance and intelligence support to the
MIC,
*l
ASAT requirements were more com-
pletely defined in late 1979 uhen preliminary results of
the Phase II ASAT Requirements Study begun in March tease
available. They were briefed to General Hill on SI October.
Following 'are the briefing's major points as summarised in
a DCS/Plans Background Paper prepared for CISCAD: 8 !
1. Soviet space systems make a significant contribu-
tion to the flexibility, efficiency, and redundancy of .-
Soviet aned forces. Low altitude spade systems (electronic
intelligence, photo, ocean surveillance, etc.) make the most
significant contribution.
. 2. For most of their space systems^the. Soviets Jiave,,.,,.,
"terrestrial lack-up capabilities" to perform the' same mis-
sion.
3. United'States ASAT should be employed under the
JCS Unified and Specified command structure.
4. United States commanders responsible for deploying
ASAT require an integrated capability: the ability to lo-
cate, identify, track, and target satellites,
5. Rules for -engaging foreign space vehicles should
parallel those currently recogniied for ships or aircraft
in international waters and airspace.
In early. December, General Hill responded to Admiral (Ret,),.'"'.
D. J. Murphy, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy ■.
Review, and the task force director, that he was impressed .'.^
by the magnitude of the effort and the diversity of the "'
research and analysis which went into the study. /The CINCAD
commented that he was in full agreement with one 'of the'
points of the briefing, that ASAT should be under a single
commander; but he also noted that the study itself seemed
to contradict that policy since it had been concerned with
developing operational requirements, a responsibility nor-
mally that of a service or command, fie thought "... un-
certainty in the mission assignment for ASAT. .' ." might
.accomt^for^the^sifuation, but added the Unified Command
Plan clearly isignel''Tplc'e*laefense"to'ADCOM, and tradi- ....
tionally that mission had.included ASAT (e.g., CINCAD had^-
ex£LDd.s^d_c2erationa? •* rt ntwil of Program 437L)j_[ ~
.*!
CHAPTER I • MISSION, COMMAND, ORGANIZATION, AND RESOURCES
1. ADCOM Special Order G-20S, 19 Oct 78, This order
superceded SO G-180, 28 September 1979.
2. ADCOM SO G-mY,' 30 Nov 79; ADCOM SO G-240, 30 Nov 79.
3. ADCOM SO G-226, 21 Nov 79.
4. Air Force Regulation 23-9, "Organization and Mission-
Field, "Aerospace Defense Center," 1 Dec 79 (Doc 1). The
reader should be aware that while the regulation carries the
1 December publication date, it was still at the printers at
the end of the year and was not distributed to the field until
Marcfii3980:.-s ■.-.-,. .; • •?
■ *'S:. Msg (tl)yJCS (J-S) to CINCNORAD, "NORAD Agreement
.Renewal," 19/131'OZ Jul 79.
'.6-!' Msg (U), NORAD (J-S) to JCS, "NORAD Recommended
Changes to NORAD Agreement," 01/lS«Z'Aug 79 (Doc 2); Msg
(C-Revw-99), CINCNORAD/CD to NDBQ, Ottawa, "toendine CDS,- _,
CINCNORAD Jiscus£ions,"_31/;[ei!51 Jul 79.
v.-y.-r.-. ■-.■■i/'-: •■' . r The.-
'-CtrBotaTis 'had teeS^n^celStanir^tTffoft s^o"of tain" "" '"
such access, and the deputy CINCNORAD, General Lewis, 'cred-
ited General Hill's "tenacious efforts" for achieving this
partial victory. General Lewis told his government that he
thought the new NORAD agreement should note the need for
Canadian officers to have access to all classified informa-
tion needed^tp carry out their responsibilities. ADCOM DCS/
Plans officers were in complete agreement that unless the 3
Canadians were given access to space systems capabilities,
future joint planning would be impossible. (Msg (C-Revw-99),
CISCNORAD/CD to NDHQ, Ottawa, "Impending CDS-CINCNORAD Dis-
cussions," 31/204SZ Jul 79; Staff Action Memorandum (U),
"Canadian Access to U.S. Military Space Related Security In-
formation," Col W. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs,
ADCOM, to XPD et al, 9 Nov 79.)
7. Msg, (S-Revw-99), CINCNORAD (CD) to NDHQ, Ottawa
(ADM POL), "Renewal of NORAD Agreement," 13/22452 Nov 79
(Doc 3).
8. ADC- SO G-l, i Dec 79. '
9. Nancy Johnson, "NORAD Chisf Gen Hill to Retire," •
Colorado Springs Sun, 2S Aug 79.
10, Msg, (S/DG-C 19 Sep 81/Decl 19 Sep 85), SecState to
AMEMBASSY Ottawa, "CINCNORAD Billet," 19/2318Z Sep 79 (Doc 4).
11. Msg, (C-ADS 21 Sep 81), AMEMBASSY Ottawa to Sec-
. State, "CINCNORAD Billet," 21/1614Z Sep 79; Msg (C-GDS 15 Dec
85) SecState to AMEMBASSY Ottawa, "Announceient of Appoint-
ment, .. .," 1S/1858Z Dec 79; Msg (C-Revw 00), AMEMBASSY
Ottawa to SecState, "CINCNORAD Billet," 28/2O09Z Dec 79 [Doc
5); CoMfen't'byiLt Gen' K.' £.' Lewis, CD, in norning staff . ,
■.'Be"etiiig_ 28_S^_79 [historian in. attendance)-.. .•-=&*■:, :.-; '■■■'
12. Msg (S/DG-C 10 Oct 81/Decl 10 Oct 85), froa Sec-
State to AMEMBASSY,' Ottawa, "Meeting- of Secretary Brown , and
Canadian Minister McKinnon," 10/19002 Oct 79.'
13. "Hart Opposes 3-Star General at NORAD," Colorado
Springs' Gazette Telegraph, 27 Nov 79; Msg (U), Hq AFSINC,
Kelly AFB to AIG"50S7" Ti AT News Service Release," 21/19052
Dec, 79. " ■' '_ "~" " ""• '.* "■.'"
14. Assumption of command of Aerospace Defense Center
by ADC Special Order G-3, 28 Dec 79; assumption of command of
ADCOM (specified) by ADCOM SO G-26S, 28 Dec 79; and assump-
tion' of counand of NORAD by NORAD SO G-13S, 28 Dec 79. All
were effective.,! Jan 80. Biography of Lt Gen James V. Hart-
inger (Doc 6). .,.,-.„ . ;
15. For discussion of the development of the reorgani-
zation study and planning to the end of 1978 see History of
ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 6-24.
16. Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78" (S-RevW 31 Dec 99), p 22
(material used S-Revw 98); Msg (U), AFSSO USAF/PA to CINCPAC/
CS, "Air Defense and Surveillance Realignment," for Gen Bos-
well from Gen Greenleaf; 04/2232Z Jan 79; Msg (S/DG-C-24 Dec
80/Decl 24 Dec 84), AMEMBASSY Wellington to SecState, "Reor-
ganization of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance and Warning
Systems," 22/0307Z Dec 78; Msg (C-Decl 20 Dec 84), OSDAO
London to SecState, "Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and
Surveillance and Warning Systems," 27/1714Z Dec 78; Msg
(S/DG-C-Z1 Feb 81/Decl 21 Feb 85), AMEMBASSY Ankara to Sec-
State, "Roles .and Mission of SAC," 21/11452 Feb 79; Msg (S/
riG-C-Zl Feb 81/Decl 21 Feb 8S), AHEMBASSY Wellington to Sec-
State, "Roles and Missions of the Strategic Air Command,"
22/04052 Feb 79; Msg (S/DG-C-13 Mar 81/Decl 13 Mar 85), Sec-
State to AMEMBASSY Canberra, Rome, Ankara, Copenhagen, -Uin-
. don, Ottawa* ■Reykjavik,- Seoul, Wellingtony'et'-al, ^Reorgani'-""'
zation of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance7Farning Systems,",
14/00272 Mar_79. (S-Deci 15 Dec 84) ADCOM recommended the
Philippines and Morocco also be notified of the proposed re-
organization since space surveillance and warning sites would
soon be established in those countries. Hq USAF replied that
such discussions would be premature and should be conducted
' in the normal course of events leading to arrangements for
manning sites in those countries. (Msg (S/DG-C-15 Dec 80/
'Decl 15 Dec 84), AD'COM/XP to.OSAF/XOXX, "Reorganization of , ,^
USAF Air Defense and Surveillance and Warning Systems," 19/-' ^
. 21102 Dec 78; Msg (S/DG-C-15 Dec 80/Decl 15 Dec 84), Hq USAF/
XO to Hq ADCOM/XP, "Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and
Surveillance arid Warning Systems," 18/14252 Jan 79.)
17. Hist of ADC0M,fl977-'7J (S-Rev» 31 Dec 99), p 22
(material used S-Revw 31 Dec 98); Msg (C-Decl 2 Jan 85),
AMEMBASSY Canberra to SecState, "Reorganization of USAF Air
Defense and Surveillance and Warning Systems," 02/04532 Jan
79; Msg (U), CINCPAC to AFSSO USAF/PA, "ADCOM Realignment,"
05/04462 Jan 79; Msg (S/DG-C-19 Jan 81/Decl 19 Jan 85), AH-
EMBASSY Canberra to SecState, "Reorganization . . .," 19/
-.0530Z-Jan*-79p-Msg«(S-Revw 26 Jan 99); AMEMBASSY -Canberra to'""
SecState, "Reorganization . . .," 26/05592 Jan 79; Msg (C-
Decl 31 Jan- 80)y SecState- to AMEMBASSY Canberra, "Reorgani-
zation . . .,." 27/0002 Jan 79; Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), Hq '
USAF/XOX to HQ PACAF/2P, "Reorganization . . ,," 09/18152 Feb
79; Msg (S-DG-C-13 Mar 81/Decl 13 Mar 85), SecState to AM-
EMBASSY Canberra et al^, "Reorganization . . .," 14/00272 Mar
79; Msg (S-Revw 2roct 99), 5DSCS, Hooiera AS to Hq ADCOM/DOF,*
"Reorganization," 29/0250Z Oct 79; Msg (S-Revs 8 Kov 99),
5DSCS, Woomera AS, to Hq ADCOM/DOF, "Reorganization," 08/
0510Z Nov 79. .
' 18. Msg (S/DG-C-22 Dec 80/Decl 22, Dec 84), AMEMBASSY,
Ottawa 'to' SecState; "Reorganization . . .," 22/16452 Dec 78
(Doc 7); Msg (S/DG-C-22 Dec 80/Decl 22 Dec 84), AMEMBASSY,
Ottawa' to SecState, "Reorganization . . .," 23/00052 Dec 78
(Doc 8).
19. Hsg (C-Oecl 8 Jan 85) SecState to AMEMBASSY,
Ottawa, "Reorganization . . .," 08/2019Z Jan 79, (Doc 9); Msg
(C-GDS 11 Jan 84), State 010645, SecState to AMEMBASSY,
Ottawa, "Reorganization . . .," 13/1850Z Jan 79 (Doc 10);
Hsg (C-Decl 16 Jan 85) USDAO, Ottawa, ^to '.SecState, "Reorgani-
■zation'-i ':-'"•;," 16/22332 Jan 79(Doc 11).
Msg (S-Revw 26 Jan 00), USDAO, Ottawa, to SecState,
, . .," 26/205Z Jan 79 (Doc 12).
21. Ibid.; Hsg fS-GDS 6 Feb 85), SecState to AMEMBASSY,
Ottawa, "Reorganization . . .," 08/07S0Z Feb 79 (Doc 13).
■ ; 22. -.*g: ; (S r Reywl5..Feb'"00),'.'uSDAO, Ottawa, to- Hq USAF/
CC/PA/XO/^Reorgani-ation . . -. ,"15/18472 Feb 79 (Doc 14)'.
23. ' ltr-(S/DG-C-3 Mar Sl/Decl 8 Mar 85), Gen D. C.
Jones, Chairman, JCS, to'Adairal R.' H. Falls, Chief of the '
Defence Staff, NDIIQ, n.s., 8 Mar 79 (Doc IS). .
24. Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 20-21
(material used S-Revw-98).
25. Meeting Minutes (U) Second Combined Air Defense
Reorganization Planning Conference, . 9-11 JanJjL(Doc*-16-). *"■*""*
■ -^26. Ibid;
27. Talking/Discussion Paper on ADCOM Reorganization
(U), prepared'by Lt Col-D.-S. Robinson, XPXP, authenticated by
Brig Gen W. E. Lindeian,' DCS/Plans and Programs, 28 Feb 79
(Doc.17). 9 . 4
28. Msg (0) Hq : SAC/DPR to Hq AFMPC/MPCR, "Aerospace De-
fense Reorganization," 23/2030Z Jan 79; Msg (U) Hq ADCOM/DPX
to Hq AFMPC/MPCR, "Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 25/
2030Z Jan 79; Msg (B) Hq AFMPC/MPCR to Hq SAC, info ADCOM,
"Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 3G/1715Z Jan. 79; Msg- (U)
Hq AFMPC/MPCY to Hq ADCOM/DPX, '"ADCOM Reorganization," 21/
Z0002 Mar 79. , . . .
29. Memo for the Record (S-Decl 31 Dec 93), Col 0. H.
Koraser, Exec. Asst, Office of the Vice Chief of Staff, USAF,
"Proposed Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance
-Warning Resources," 28 Feb 79 (signed as approved by Gen
Allen) (Doc 18),
30. Memorandum for Gens Allen and Hill, (U) "ADCOM,"
from Undersecretary of the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark, 22 Feb 79
(Doc 19). Earlier documentation of the difficulty Dr, Mark
was having accepting wholeheartedly the reorganization can be
found in Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 19-20; Memorandum for Lt
Gen William Creech (U), from Dr. Hark, 20 Oct 77 (Doc 20);
and Memo for: General Anderson (U), from Lt Col Owen Wormser,
CVAR.Hq USAF, "ADCOM.Jteorganization Proposal.,". 29 Ajig v 7J,^<.„
(DootJIJv ■-•-■v-v -ww,- .■-■-;--■-• '■"■'■ -■■" ■-•■■• " ;.'
31. Ltr (S-Decl 21 Feb 85) Gen J. E. Bill, CINCAD, to '
Gen Lew Allen, CofS, USAF, n.d., 22 Feb 79 (transmitted by
DACOM IN secure teletype network) (Doc 22) . ■
32. Memo for the Record (S-Decl 31 Dec 90), Col 0. H.
Wormser, Exec Asst, Office of the vice Chief of Staff, USAF,
"Proposed Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/
Warning Resources," 28 Feb 79 (approved by CSAF' Gen Lew' : '^
Allen) (Doc 18), ■;,.-,;„■. . ... ' f' : : '•:■...'"' :: '
33. Ibid. \ : '' .'■.■■■
34/ LtT*(S-Decl'31 Dec 90), Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, to Gen
James E. Hill, CMCNORAD/ADCOM, n.i., 19 Mar 79 (Doc 23).
35. Ltr (It), Gen James E. Hill, CIMORAD/ADCOM, to Gen
Lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 16 Apr 79 (Doc 24).
36. Ltr (U), Col R. .E. Magnusson, Dir of Air Defense Op-
erations ^D00),,^o^C0M/JJ04 sand, DOZydlTemporarH"^^
organization Office," 8 Jan 79; Ltr, Brig Gen K. E. Lindeaan',, .
DCS/Plans and Programs; to all' DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff'
' Elements, "Reorganization Working Group," 14 Dec 78.
37. ADCOM Programming Plan 79-3 (0), "Aerospace Defense
Reorganization," S Mar 79, pp 1-5; D-3 - D-8 (Doc 2S).
38. Msg (S-Decl 27 Feb 85), Hq TAC/XP to Hq ADCOM/XP, ' '$ .
"DraftPPL 79-1 Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 28/1307Z Feb
79; Msg (U) Hq SAC/XP to Hq ADCOM/XP, "Aerospace Defense Re-
organization PPian Vol I," 2Z/2240Z Mar 791 Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/
XP to Hq SACXP, "Aerospace Defense Reorganization, " 02/22 15Z
Apr '79 CDOC26); Msg.(U), Hq SAC/XP to Hq 1K0M7XP7 n.s., "W~~ '
17402 Apr 79. '
39. Msg (U), Ho USAF/XO to Ho ADCOM/CS, XP, "ADCOft'Re-
alignment--Revision of Mission Directives," 22/1845Z Mar 79.
40. Msg (U), OSAF/OIP to ALMAJCOM, "Public Affairs
Guidance for Base Closures and Realignments," 28/18002 Mar
79; Msg (U), OSAF/OIP to ALMAJCOM, "State by State Summary,"
28/18102 Mar 79. (11) Later, the Air Force's decision not to an-
flounce prior to 29 March that ADCOM was a candidate for dis-
establishment and the headquarters building for closure was
challenged in federal court ( Willett v. Brown ) . The case
will be examined later in this chapter. As explained by Ms
Antonia Chayes, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Man-
power, Reserve Affairs, and Installations, to Senator Gary
Hart (D-Colo) , in hearings before the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Military Construction, in May, the Air Force
did not do so as a policy matter because of on-going sensi-
tive consultations with foreign governments, and technically
'because it had been determined the ADCOM headquarters (the ':
*Chidlaw Building). was not a military installation as defined
in 10 U.S.C., Section 2687). There was also, she said, :'."'■
>•" . . .some legislative history to the effect that Candida- .'••
■cy and decision can be announced concurrently, according to
the wording of 2687 . . ',", and "... the Air Force felt,
quite secure . . . and, in no way, regards itself as violat-
ing the law." (Stenographic Transcription of. Hearings, Sub-
committee on Military Construction, Senate Armed Services ■
Committee, 1 May 79, p. 54.)
. 41. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CIHCNORAD, to all DCSs'--'-
ssandJpecial-StafL Elements, -■^0Mi!eorg3ni:ation,"'-29 5 Ma? , ''* , ~'''
79 \(Doc 27); Msg (U), CINCMORAD to AIG 7142, "ADCOM Re-
organization," 29/1501Z Mar ?9- (Doc 28).
42. Analysis of public reaction from news articles ap-
pearing in local Colorado Springs newspapers. A collection
of articles from the Colorado Springs Gazette Tele graph and
Colorado Springs Sun pertaining to the proposeiTphaseout of
ADCOM for the yearT979' is included as (Doc 29).
43.. Ray Potter, "Realtors Riding Crest of Springs
Housing Boom," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph , 15 Apr 79.
., ■. .44.'. Ann Imse,-. "Figures Defy ADCOM Job loss," Colorado
Springs Sun, 3 Apr 79.
45. Michael D. Green, "ADCOM Task Force Named,"
Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph , 11 Apr 79.
46. Transcript (U) of tape recorded at the meeting by
ADC0M/0I, "Air Force/Colorado Springs Public Meeting," 20 Apr
79, pp 3-12, (Doc 30). Mr. John Dennison, ADC0M/H0, was also
present at the Public Meeting.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., pp 12-28.
49. Ibid., pp-32-38, 46-52 passim .
51. Ibid., pp 38, 46,
5Z. Ibid., pp 54-56.'
53. Ltr (U), William J. Hybl, Attorney at Law, to Gen
J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, n.s., 26 Apr 79, with 1 Atch: ADCOM
Task Force Report, 25 April 1979 (Doc 31).
• , 54. . Hearings, before the. Subcommittee "on Military Con-
struction Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session, "Base Clo-
sures and Realignments Proposed by Department of Defense,
Fiscal Year 1979,"pp 165-173 (Representative Kramer's ques-
tions and the Air Force's answers are included pp 685-687.);
"Kramer Defends ADCOM," Colorado Springs Sim, 26 Apr 79. The
House Committee on Appropriations Report on the 1980 Appropri-
ations Bill carried a factual explanation 'of the Air Force's
action,, and the Air Force was lauded for its responsiveness
'to the Committee's original request to look into the matter of
..overlap .between-ADCOM, .SAC,-and-TACeven*though"it>meant'a>Te'-* il:
duction. in the Air Force's structure. (House Report. 96.-^5,0,
"Report of tbe Committee on Appropriations, DOD Appropriations
Bill FY-80,"'20Sep 79.)- ; . ... -.
55, Ltr (U), R. W. Gutmann, Director, Logistics and Com-
munications Division, United States Generai Accounting Office,
to the Honorable Ken Kramer, House of Representatives, n.s.,...
25 Jun 79 {Doc 32).
56. "Hart Wary of NORAD Change," Colorado Springs Sun,
19 Jan 79, p 1; "Review of ADCOM Reduction Promised," Colorado
Springs Sun, 28 Jan 79, p 4,
' 57. ' Glenn Drban, "Hart Doubts ADCOM Return," Colorado
Springs Gazette Telegraph , 18 Apr "9;
58. Atch (0) Transcript of Hearings before Subcommittee
on Military Construction, Senate Aimed Services Committee, 1 May
79, to Memo, Lt Col J. Graham, SAC/LLL, to ADCOM/HO, 24 Aug 79.
59. Report No. 96-209, Report by Senator Hart to Ac-
company Senate Sill 1319, Military Construction Authorization,
FY-80, 96th Congress, 1st Session, 12 Jun 79, pp 5-6; Michael D.
Green, "Air Force Defends ADCOM Decision," Colorado Springs
Gazette Telegraph , 18 May 79; Allen Cromley, "Sen Hart Urges
Study of Defense Requirements," Colorado Springs Sun, IS May
79. Hart's office.explainedvto:ADeOM that while tie state-
ment might generate just another study, it night also create
enough Congressional pressure to produce more definitive OSD
policy guidance. This might, in turn, produce procurement
funds for modernization. (SSS (U), Brig Gen X. E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CC et sl_, "Proposed State-
ment by Senator Hart," 22 May 79.)
60. Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, 30 Dec 79,
P B-1-. • r ,e . ■ ■■ ~T~ . , >. • ,,.
61. 32 C.F.'R. /Code of Federal Regulation/ Section * ! '
. 214.7, as quoted/in Memorandum/Opinion and Order Granting. Re-. ! ';
quest for Preliminary- Injunction and Denying MotibnHo;Dis-\5 .k
"miss or for Summary Judgment in Civil Action No 79-451. (Wil-jf
lett et al vs. Brown et al), United States District Court.' for
the District of Colorado, 23 May 79, p 5 (Doc 33).
62. Study (tl), "Environmental Impact Assessment for the
Proposed Reorganization of the USAF Air Defense and Survcil- ■
lance Resources," DAF April 1978, p ¥-1, (Doc 34). !
■* * ^sr'reaTTTOi-ir"^^"" ' '" **'*"*" ""*** "
64. "Negative Determination for Proposed Reorganization
of USAF Aerospace Defense Forces," Col F. J. Smith, Chairman,
Hq USAF Environmental Protection Committee, 17 May 78 (Doc
■3S).
65. Ibid.
66. "Supplement to Negative Determination and Environ-
mental Assessment for Proposed Reorganization of USAF Aero-
space Defense Forces," (U) Col Francis J. Smith, Chairman, Hq
USAF Environmental Protection Committee, 7 'Feb 79 (Doc 36);
"Supplement No 2 .to Negative Determination . . .," (U) Col
. Francis J,, Smith, .Chairman, Hq USAF Environmental Protection
' Committee,' IS Mar 79 (Doc 37).
67. Msg (S-Decl 1 Mar 84), CINCAD to Hq USAF/PA/LE,
"Environmental Analysis . . .," 01/2100Z Feb 79 (Doc 38).
(C), Ho USAF/LE to CINCAD/CS, "Environmental
." 13/1830Z Mar 79 (Doc 39),
69. Summons, Civil Suit, Richard N. Killett et al v.
Harold Brown et al, Civil Case No. 79-F-4S1, in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, 17 Apr
79 (Doc 40). . .. ■..,,.-,. -.■.....-.-„.■-■.;
70. "Suit Disputes ADC Shutdown," Colorado Springs Sun,
19 Apr 79;
71. Answer, Civil Suit Willett et al_ v. Brown et al_,
Civil Case Ho 79-F-4S1, in the UnitedTTtates District Court
for the District of Colorado, no date (Doc 41)
72. Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Request for
Preliminary '.'Injunction and Denying Motion to Dismiss or for '-
"SuraarySJudgment, Suit of Willett v. Brown, Civil Action No.
79-F-4S1'; in the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Colorado, signed by Judge Sherman Finesilver, 23 May
■ 79 (Doc 33);? (D) The Chidlaw Building was constructed ex-
pressly'as a headquarters for a major air command in 1962 and
early 1963, being dedicated in March 1963. It was entirely
windowless and special fallout protection and security alarms
and shelters were provided. (Historian's note.)
73. Memorandum to General Moore (ADCOM/CV) (U), "Wil-
lett vs. Brown," Col J. D. Mazza, "JAG, 23 May 79; "ADCOM
. Ruling^elayed^Colpf^do Springs Sun,. 15,Jun-.79«u-. v .. -*-*"
-- 74. -Memorandum of Points -and Authorities in Support of
Motion- to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judg-
ment, Suit- of Willett v. Brown, Case So. 79-F-4S1, in the
United States -District Court for the District of Colorado, by
Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 18 Jul 79. (Doc 42); Report (0),
"Formal Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Reorgani- ^
zation of the DSAF Air Defense and Surveillance/tfarning Re-
sources," 29 Jun 79, revised 11 Jul 79, prepared by Hq AFESC,
Hq MAC, Hq TAC, and Hq SAC. (Doc 43). (U) Concern for the
effect the injunction was having on personnel actions with
regard to the closure of ADCOM caused the Air Force 'to motion
the Court.on 23..July.that it be allowed to issue letters of '■ '
preliminary offer of transfer to ADCOM civilian employees and
to be able to use the'negative responses received- for plan-
ning purposes.* The Court agreed to modify the injunction of
23 May to allow the issuance of preliminary offers of trans-
fer. Affirmative responses to such offers were to be con-
sidered for planning purposes only and employees could at a
later date decide to decline. .The files of those responding
negatively and those that did not respond did not need to be
sent to the gaining commands for consideration. (Motion to
Amend Order, Suit of Willett v. Brow), Case No. 79-F-451, in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
by Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 23 Jul 79 (Doc 44); Pro-
posed Supplemental Order, Suit of Willett v. Brown, Case No.
79-F-4S1, in the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Colorado, 24 Jul 79 (Doc 45).
75. Ltr (U), Col J. W. Fahrsiey, JA/ADCOM, to CV et si,
"Litigation: ADCOM Reorganization," 20 Jul 79 (Doc 4£J7 "~
Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to Defendants! Motion to dis-
miss, or, in the Alternative for Suirjnary Judgiseat, Suit
Willett v. Brown, Case No. 7S-F-4SI, in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, i Aug '9, o !
(Doc 47).
: 76. Ibid., ppVlG-. ■/ ' "' '"^j,,' :' :.
■ 77. . Defendants'. Seply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to
Motion to Disoissoryin the Alternative for. Sunaary Judg-
ment, Suit Sillett.v. Brown, Case So. 79-F-4S1,- in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, Joseph
Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 8 Aug 79, pp 8-9 (Doc 48).
78. Minute Order, Suit Willett v. Brown, Case No. 79-
F-451, in the United States District Court for the District,
of ^Colorado,* 13 :Aug 79 (Doc 49). . .- J-
"■"Stilt ,tdiKeep" T ADCOS[ Will Continue," Colorado ■
Springs Sun, 21 Aug- 79V - ■■.■- ' ' "-" "'
80. Order, Suit Willett v. Brown, Case No.' 79-F-451,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, signed by Judge Sherman Finesilver, 21 Aug 79
(Doc SO) . * ^
81.' "ADCOM Suit Dismissed, " Colorado Springs Gazette
Telegraph , 22 Aug' 79.
■ 82. Msg (0)-, Hq USAF/PAX to Hq ADCOM/XP et al, "AD-
COM, Reorganization,,"., 23/13S1Z Aug 79 (Doc 51). •.. •- •-. . ■
83. ADCOM PPlan 79-1 (U), 5 March 79 (draft) (Doc
25). The final plan published in September showed a slight
dip for TAC, to 16,222, and no change for AFCS.
84. Ltr (U), Mai Gen F. A. Haeffner, DCS/Plans, TAC,
to Maj Gen W. C. Moore, VC, ADCOM, n.s., 15 May 79 (Doc 52).
85. Ltr (U), Maj Gen W. C. Moore, VC, ADCOM, to Maj
Gen F, A. Haeffner, DCS/Plans, TAC, n.s., 29 May 79 (Doc S3);
Ltr (U), Maj Gen R. K. Fye, USA, to ADCOM/DP, "Support for
TAC ADCOM," 30 Hay 79 (Doc 54).
86. Msg (II), CINCAD/CC to Hq TAC/CC and Hq AFCS/CC,
"ADCOM, Reorganization Implementation Date," -3 1 / 1 9 4 SZ" Hay:' 7-9 v: ■--
'■ (Doc : 'S'5)''.'"" """'". ""
' 87. Msg ~(U), TAC/CC to CINCAD/CC, "ADCOM Reorganiza-
tion," 06/13302 Jun 79 (Doc S6).
88. Msg (li), AFCS/CC to CINCAD/CC, "ADCOM Reorganiza-
tion Impleaeatation Date," 04/2320Z Jun 79 (Doc 57).
89. Minutes of Hq ADCOM Reorganization Working Group -■;
■ Meeting 11 Jun 79, 18 Jun 79, and 25 Jun 79! Msg (II), USAF/"
PAX to ABCOM/CS et al, "Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning
Realignment," 15/70452 Jun 79 (Doc 58); Ltr (U), Lt Col l- H.
Curl, Asst CS, ADCOM, to ALL DCSs and SSEs, "ADCOM Reorgani-
zation Belay," 18 Jun 79' (Doc 59).
90, Briefing (U), "Results of ADCOM Reorganization Con-
ference, 25-27 Jul 79, presented by Col I. W. Jensen, DCS/
Plans (Plans, Prgas, and Rqnts), Hq ADCOM at CINC's Horning
staff meeting, 1 Aug "9 (Doc 60).
^Vv-'9kv,Msg-»(U);'Hq-ADCffiI7XP't6'Hq'TAt/XP;'1irS?iC/XP7ail'd"'' i ''
Hq AFCS/XP, "Reorganization PPlan Concurrence," 31/20302 Aug :
79 "(Doc 61); Msg (U) Hq SAC/XPX to Hq ADCOM/XPX, "Aerospace
Defense Reorganization PPlan 79-3, Vol I, dtd 1 Sep 79,"
04/15002 Sep 79 (Doc 62); Msg (U), Hq TAC/XPP to Hq ADCOM/
XPX, "Aerospace Defense Reorganization PPlan 79-3, Vol I,
1 Sep 79," 40/1247Z Sep 79 (Doc 63); Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP
to Hq OSAF/PAXSA, "Programing Plan 79-1 . . . Monthly Report?
for October 1979," 09/15452 Nov 79 (Doc 64).
.92. Msg (U), Hq USAF/PAX to Hq ADCOM/XP, "ADCOM Reor-
ganization," 23/13512 Aug 79;. Msg (U), Hq tiSAF/PA to CIKCAD/
CC, "Implementation Date for the ADCOM Reorganization,". 30/ • ,
19002 Aug. n (Doc 65). •'■■■■
" 93. Minutes of Hq ADCOM Reorganization Working Group,
4 Sep 79 and 17 Sep 79; Msg (1!) , Hq SAC/XPX to Hq (JSAF/PAXSA
et al, "Programming Plan 79-3 (ADCOM Reorganization Monthly
Report for September 1979),"11/15002 Oct 79. On I November
the SAC office became an Operating Location tor DCS/Space
Surveillance and Missile Warning Systems, Hq SAC. (Ltr, (U)
Maj Gen II. E. Cooper, ADCOM CS to All DCS and SSEs, "Estab-
lishment of Hq SAC Operating Location Colorado Springs (OICS) ,
1 Nov 79 (Doc 66).)
94, ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79; DAF SO GA-65, 10 Oct 79;
Msg (U), CINCAD to AIG 722S/CC et al, "Farewell Message from
CINCAD," 26/1500Z Sep 79 (Doc 6TJ";Tisg (»), Hq ADCOM/DO to
20AD et al, "Message of Appreciation," 28/171SZ Sep 79 (Doc
95. ADCOM SO G-182, 28 Sep 79; ADC SO (C) G-179, 28 Sep
79; Msg (U) CINCAD/CV to 2CS et al, "ADCOM Reassignment Action,'
28/1925Z Sep 79 (Doc 69).
96. ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79; ADCOM PPlan 79-1 (U),
"Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 1 Sep 79, pp D-7, D-8
(Doc 70).
f ■••97. ■;,ADCOM|SO;G-20S;-19'Oct IS'l DAF SO GA-68,'16 Oct 79;
' ADCOM ;PPlsn ; 79-l-(U), "Aerospace Defense Reorganization," -
1 Sep!79, p D-6-(Doc 70) .. Included as Doc 71 is. the "Transfer
Agreement Between Aerospace Defense Coaaand and Strategic Air
Corjiaandtfor Peterson AFB, CO., and the "Menorandus of Agree-
ment' Between NORAD/ADCOM and SAC for Support of the KORAD/
ADCOM Staff and the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex."
98. Msg (U), CINCSAC/CS to CINCAD/CS, "ADCOM Units
Transfer Dates," 11/15302 Oct 79 (Doc 72). The 10th AERODS
was transferred 1 Nov (ACCOM SO G-206, 23 Oct 79).
,.. \ 99. -Msg-(a>,-.CINGAD/eS»to»OISCSAC-/CS-- ,, ADC0M , llnits"' '"
Transfer Dates," 16/2210Z Oct 79 (Doc 73).
100. Msg (0), Hq SAC/XPM to Hq ADCOM/XPM, "Transfer of
ADCOM Units to .SAC," 29/2100Z Oct 79;. ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Kov
101. Report (S-Rem-98), "Proposal for: A Reorganiza-
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance Warning Resources,
Jan 78, p IV-3, (Doc 39, Chap I, Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78).
102. Atch (S-Revw-98), "NC0C Staff Comments ffo Jan 78
draft Proposal for Reorganization of Aerospace Defense Forces7,
•to-ltr,-Brig'Gen-Dv K-.-Kinn, Commander NORAD Combat' Oper'a'tidris
Center, to N/XP (ADCOM), 9 Feb 78 (Doc 42, Hist of ADCOM, .1.977;
78). Ftnt 49, Chap 1 of that history references documents 'from
other staff agencies expressing concern about various parts of
the reorganization proposal.
103. Msg (S-Decl 86), JCS 3816, JCS to CINCAD, "The Re-
organization . . .", 16/1817Z Feb 78 (Doc 46, Chap I, Hist of
ADCOM, 1977-78).
m. Hist of ADCOM fS-Revk' 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, p 17,
Material used (S-Revw-97).
105. Msg (S-Re™-97), CINCAD to JCS, "Reorganization
, , .", 08/15092 Mar 78 (Doc 48, Chap I,.Hist o£*At)COM,- lOT*-^
78). ' - ■■
106. Hist of ADCOH (S-Reira 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 21-23,
material used (S-Revw-98).
107." Minutes of Second' Combined Air Defense Reorganiza-
tion Planning Conference, 9-11 Jan 79, pp 7-8 (Doc 16).
108. Handwritten effluents by General Hill .at. bottom of ^
SSS (S), Col K. R. Kerity.Asst DCS Plans and Programs,' ADCOM,*-'"
to A/DO et al, "Retention of Advocacy Sole byCINCAD After
Reorganization (Hq USAF Interface), ".27 Feb 79, with 1 Atch
(S-Decl 31 .Dec 85) , "Discussion 1 Paper on Advocacy" (Doc 74) .
109. Ltr (S-'Decl 21'Feb SSj, Gen J, 2, Hill, CISCNORAD
to Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 22 Feb 79 (Doc 22).
110. Ltr (U), Col T. K. Jensen, Dir/Plans, Programs, and
Requirements, ADCOM, to ADCOM Reorganization Working Group,
"Coordination of ADCOM P-Plan," 5 Mar 79.
„^„lllT--ADC(BI PPl-an^79-VS»Mar»79rpp:3=4'*(DbM5);"'" '****"'
'112." Msg '(D). Hq SAC/XP to Hq ADCOM/XP, ,: . . Reorgani
''zation P-Plani' Vol I," 22/22402 Mar 79.
' . -.1-13. Msg \V} : r Hq' ADCOM/XP to' Hq SAC/XP, "Aerospace De'-'
fense Reorganization," 02/22152" Apr 79.
114. Msg (0), Hq 0SAF/X0 to Ko ADCOM/CS, XP et al,
"ADCOM Realignment . . .", 22/184SZ Mar 79.
115. Memorandum for the Record (S-Decl 31 Dec -85), "Pro-
posed Reorganization of- USAF Air Defense -and Surveillance/
• Jarning-Resources," It Col 0;'H':'M*6'rm's'er, 'Executive Assistant,
Office of the VCofS, USAF, 28 Feb 79 (signed and approved by -
Gen Allen) (Doc '18).
116. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 85), Brig Gen It , E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CS, CV, CC, "Strategic De-
fense Advocacy Responsibilities-Post Reorganization," 26 Mar
117. Ltr (S-Decl 31 Dec 85), Gen J. E. Hill, CIMCNORAD,
to Gen lew Allsn, CSAF, n.s., 26 Mar 79 (Doc 7S).
118. Ltr (U), Gen Richard Ellis, CINCSAC, to Gen Lew
Allen, CSAF, n.s., 9 Apr 79 (Doc 76).
119. Msg (I)), CINCAD/CV to Kq USAF/PAX, "SAC C2 Master
Plan," 23/23032 Apr 79 (Doc 77),
120. Ltr (U), General Lew Allen, CSAF, to Gen J. E. Hill,
CINCN03AD, n.s., 11 Apr 79.
121. Msg (U), Hq USAF/CV to ADCOM/CC et al, "ADCOM Re-
organization-Organizational Responsibilities, ""09/22232 Jul
79 (Doc 78).
122. Briefing (U), "ADCOM Reorganization, Missions, Au-
thorities, Responsibilities and Inter-organizational Relation-*
.ships, presented by Lt Col Hensman, AF/XOHC, 25 Jul 79 (Doc ''
- 79) _.,,. -...,.,.
... 123., Minutes of Headquarters ADCOM Reorganization Work-
ing Group Meeting. (D), 30 Apr 79.
124. Msg (0), Hq AFMPC/MPCYXP to Hq ADCOM/DP, "ADCOM Re-
organization," 25/18002 Apr 80.
125. Minutes (U) of ADCOM Reorganization Conference, 14-
16 May 79, AFMPC,' Randolph AFB, Texas, Parts II, IV, and V.
^'^126?^iiutes (Uj'of ADCOM Reorganization Conference, '14-""
16 May 79, AFMPC,. Randolph AFB, Texas, "Officer Panel Min-
utes."
127. Memorandum for the Record (U), "Briefing on Meeting
of Command Representatives on Reorganization of ADCOM at MFC,
14-16 May 79 ?' presented to General Hill and his staff at
CINCs. morning staff meeting, 22 May 79 (historian in attend- *
128.' Ltr (U), Col F. R. Nealon, DCS/Personnel , ADCOM, to
AFMPC/MPCR, "ADCOM Realignment Manning Plan," 11 Jun 79 :
.Memorandum. for the Record. (U) „. "Meeting..of DCS Representatives
'to Hq' ADCOM Reorganization tlof king Group on Reorganization
Manning. Plan Requirements ,": 29 May 79 (historian in attendance).
129. Msg (S-Decl 30 Dec 85), Hq (JSAf/PA to Hq ADCOM/XP,
"Air Defense Reorganization," 26/23002 Jan 79,
130. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 85), CINCAD/CC to Hq DSAF/PA,
personal for Lt Gen Greenleaf from Gen J. E. Hill, "Air De-
fense Reorganization," 07/16302 Feb 79 (Doc 80).
Agreement reached in Second Combined Air Defense
ation Planning Conference, 9-11 Jan 79 (Doc 16).
132. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 8S), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/PA,
personal for Lt Gen Greenleaf from Gen J. E. : HUl,,"Air,.De.-.
fence Reorganization," 07/1630Z'Feb 79 (Do'c'"80J; Ltr (S-Decl
31 Dec 90), Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, to Gen J. E. Hill, CINC-
NORAD/ADCOM, n.s., 19 Mar 79 (Doc 23).
133. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD/ADCOM, to Gen
lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 16 Apr 79 (Doc 24).
134. Msg (U), Hq USAF/CV to ADCOM/CC et al, "ADCOM Re-
organisation " Organizational Responsibilities," 09/22232
Jul 79, (Doc;,78); Msg:(U), Hq USAF/MPM to Ha,.ADCOM/.XP,,"AB- 4
COM Reorganization - . Organizational Responsibilities ,"13/
20302 Jul 79 (Doc 81). " . f ' .' % ,■ .'/.<. '
135. .Hew (II),, Brig Gen «. B. Lindeman, DCS/Plans^.and
Programs, to XPM (Col Saunders), "52 Space Headquarters Re-
duction," 16 Jul 79; Ltr (U), Haj Gen W. C. Moore, ADCOM/CV
to CS et al, "Command Council Meeting," 19 Jul 79, with 1
Atch, "XP Talking Paper with Tabs" (Doc 82); Few historians
have the opportunity, like Thucydides had, to .write about
events in 'which tfieyliave 'been a~participant... In this. in-,
stance,, and to his nisfortune,--.the command historian was ■
.there. w One-of the_.,52 spacesj^e^from^the History ^Office .^.^
136. Briefing, "Results of ADCOM Reorganization. Confer-
ence, 25-27 Jul 79, presented by Col' T. X. -Jensen, -Dir-of
Plans, Programs, and Requirements, Hq ADCOM, it CINC's morn-
ing staff meeting, 1 Aug 79 (historian in attendance) (Doc ,
137. General Hill's comments following above briefing,
1 Aug 79.
1.38. .Atchs 3 and 4 (D), "(1SAF- Itrs .'to AFMPOof '29 -Aug" '
and 31 Aug," to Ltr (U), Col W. R. Kenty, Assr DCS/Plans arid
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "ADCOM Reorganization Personnel' and'
Manpower Allocation," 6 Sep 79; Msg (H) CINCAD/CC to CSAF/
CV, "ADCOM Reorganization Implementation. Actions," 11/17202
Sep 79 (Doc 83).
139, Msg (U), CSAF/CV to CINCAD/CC, "ADCOM Reorganiza-
tion Implementation Actions," 14/17402 Sep 79.
HO. Lt r (0), Haj Gen R. C. Taylor, Director of Opera-
tions and Readiness, DCs/Operations , Plans, and Readiness,
Hq USAF, to AF/MPM, "Manning Priorities, ADCOM Reorganiza-
tion," 17 Sep 79.
141. Ltr (U), Col H. L. Fake, AFMPC Project Officer, to
Hq ADCOM/ XP et al, "ADCOM Reorganization- -Military Personnel
Distribution," no date ( circa 20 Sep 79 from approval signa-
tures and dates at bottom of letter) (Doc 84).
1976, pp 11-12, '
143. Msg (F0U0), CSAF/PR to CINCAD/CC, "Consolidation of
Colorado Springs Activities," 02/1729Z Jul 76 (Doc 20, Hist
of ADCOM, 1976).'
144. Msg (0), CINCAD/CC to CSAF/PR, "Consolidation of
Colorado Springs Activities," .08/1530Z Jul 76 (Doc 19, Hist
of ADCOM, 1976).
145. Ltr (U), Gen Daniel James, Jr., to Gen David C.
Jones,. 28 Jul 76 (Doc 38, Hist of ADCOM, 1976)
146. Ltr (0), Gen Daniel James, Jr., CINCNORAD, to Gen
David C. Jones, CSAF, n.s. 2 Jun 77. ■
147.' Affidavit~(U)"of Major General Ifilliam D. Gilbert,'.
- Air Force Director of Engineering and Services, 21 May '79,
filed as attachment to Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss, or,
in the Alternate for Susmary Judgment, "..in Case No. 79, F-4S1
( Willett et a l v; Brom et'al), District Court, Denver, CO,
18 Jul 79 (Doc. 42). '
148.' Report (S-Revw-98), "Proposal For: A Reorganiza- "
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Resources,"
Jan 78, .pp 17, IX-2 (Doc 39, Chap I, Hist, of ADCOM 1977-78).
149. Memorandum for the Record, (S-Decl 31 Dec 90), Lt Col
0. H. Wornser, Exec Ass.t, .Office VCofS, USAF, "Proposed-Re-
organization . . ,",■ 28 Feb 79 (approved' by General Allen)
(Boc 18) .
150. Staff Action Memo (D), Lt Col W. N. Ague, Exec,
DCS/Plans 5 Programs, ADCOM, to XPX, "Reorganization Activi-
ties," 30 Mar 79; SSS (U), Col T. K. Jensen, Director, Plans,
Programs, Requirements, DCS/Plans., to XP, "Reorganization
Activities," 13 Apr 79 (Doc 85); SSS (U), Col T. D. Cothran,
Jr., DCS/Engineering and Services, ADCOM, to ADC0M/XPX, "Study
of Reorganization Proposals for NORAli/ADC at Peterson AFB,
CO," 19 Apr 79, with 1 Atch, "NORAD/ADC Reorganization Study-
Options" (Doc 86).
151. Ltr (0), Gen J. E. Hill, CIMORAD, to Gen Leu
Allen, CofS, USAF, U.S., 9 May 79 (Doc 87). ■
152. Ltr (U), Maj Gen R. W. Fye, CofS, ADCOM, to Hq
USAF/LEE, "FY 1981 Military Construction Program (Our ltr,
12 Dec 78)," 27 Apr 79 (Doc 88).
153. Memo for the CMC (U), from Maj Gen If. C. Moore,
"Telecon vith Lt Gen Marion Boswell, Asst Vice Chief of Staff,
Friday, 1700., 25 May," 29 May. 79 (Doc 89).
154. 'ij.Baclcjround Paper (U), "Facility Survey for (Reor-
ganizationj-Staff Relocation," prepared" by Lt Col D. P.
Johnson, XPXP/.ADCOM, 19 Jim 79 (Doc 90) .
155. Ltr-(U), R. H. Gutmann, Dir, Logistics and Coamimi-
cations Division, Government Accounting Office, to The Honor-
able Ken Kramer, II . S. House of Representatives, 25 Jun 79
(Doc 32).
156. Denise Gamino, "So Peterson AFB Building Slated
for NORAD Move;" Colorado Springs Sun, 27 Jim 79.
, 157.'.. Affidavit ,(UJ of 'Major General William D. Gilbert,
Air-Force' 'Director-of Engineering; and Services, Zl-May 79,
filed as attachment to Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss , or,
in 'the Alternate for Summary Judgment," in Case Ho. 79-F-4S1
f wiilett ef a-lv-.-Browi et al)V District Court, Denver, CO,
18 Jul 79 (Doc 42). "
158. Memo for the Commander-in-Chief (Uj , n.s., Maj Gen 7 *
,». C. Moore, Vice Commander-in-Chief, 12 Jul 79 (note on
document from General Hill said: "Good. Press on."), (Doc
91); Ltr (U), Maj Gen W. C. Moore, Vice Commander, ADCOM, to
XP, "KORAD/ADCOM Move to Peterson AFB," -20 Jul 79 (Doc 92),
159. Ltr '(II), Col G. A. Bohlen, DCS/Engineering and '
Services, ADCOM, to Hq USAF/LEE , "Programming for NORAD/ADC
Headquarters Relocation to Peterson AFB," 15 Oct 79, with 1
Atch: DD1391 (Doc 93) .
160. SSS (U), Brig Gen N. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM to CC, "Realignment Facilities Requirements,"
12 Oct 79, with 1 atch, Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD/
CINCAD, to Gen Lev Allen, CofS, USAF, n.s., 15 Oct 79 (Doc
94).
161. Ltr (U), Gen James A. Hill, VCofS, USAF, to Gen
J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD/CINCAD, U.S., 13 Nov 79 (Doc 95).
162. Minutes of the ADCOM Reorganization Working Croup
Meeting (0), 17 Dec 79.
163. Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1978-79, pp 24-
31 (material used S-Revw-98).
164. Ibid., pp 31-32 (material used S-Revw-98)
165. Study (TS-XP 79-003), "Space Mission Organization
Planning," Executive Summary and Summary Report, Vol I (mate-
rial used S),pp ES-1, ES-3-4, ES-30-38.
166. Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) , -1978-79,- p; 32 -"
(material used S-Revw 98); Ltr (S-Decl 29 Jan 85); Gen j;'E; : '- :
Hill, CINCNORAD/to Gen lew Allen, CofS.USAK, n.s., 5 Feb
79 (Doc 96). •,-»,; :,- • ;
167. Ltr (S-Decl 29 Jun.85), Gen Hill to Gen Allen,
. 5 Feb 79 (Doc 96). Bill repeated his position in a ltr to
Allen, ^22 Feb 79 (Doc 22).
168. Ltr (S-Decl 19 Apr 85), Gen J. E. Hill, Commander
in Chief, ADCOM, to Gen Lew Allen, CofS, USAF, n.s. 27 Apr 79
■JPst.SQfl Availed eaiiination^space.otgaiiiiational,,^^
'alternatives and' ADCOM''*s concerns ~ also went to Lt Gen hT'L. :
Lawson, Dir of Plans and Policy, J-5, JCS, on 27 Apr 79 (Doc
169.- Attach 6, "SHOPS 'Votes'," (?) to Background Paper
on Space Mission 'Organization Planning Study (SMOPS), (S-
Revw S Feb 91}, 14 Jan 80 (Doc 99) ; Comments by General Hill
(U), in ADCOM Morning Staff Meeting, 12 Feb 79 (Historian
in attendance) . ■_
170. Background Paper on Space Mission Organization
Planning Study. (SMOPS),, (S-Revw 5 Feb 99), .'14 Jan 80 (Doc 99);
Msg (U), OSAE/OIP to ALMAJC0M-S0A/OI, "Space and Missile Sys-
tem Realignment," 03/2100Z Aug 79.
171. Hans M. Mark, "USAF's Three lop Priorities," Air
Force, Sep 79, Vol 62, No 9, p 66.
172. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CIMCAD, to Gen Lew Allen,
CofS, USAF, n.s., 21 Dec 79 (Doc 100). Hill also wrote to
Secretary Mark late in the year that he was confident the
Secretary would guide Air Force space organization "along the
proper path." (Ltr, Hill to Mark, 26 Dec 79 (Doc 101).)
173. Cost sharing plans arc discussed in Journal of
Discussions of the Permanent Joint Board of Defense (S-Decl
31 Dec 08), meetings 144 through 150, quarterly from Sep 76
through Jun 78,
174. Msg (S-No DG Instructions), NDIIQ, Ottawa, to
RCCPW/CDLS, Washington, and CANSUPPORT, Ent AFB, "North
American Air Defense," 10/2001Z May 78. The Danson letter is
quoted verbatim in this message (Doc 102),
175. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to Chairman of
JCS, "Modernization of North American Air Defense Systems in
Canada and Alaska (Your Memo, CM-1940-78, 24 Hay 78)," 14 Jun
78 (Doc 103). .. s
176. Ltr (U), SecDef Harold Brown to Minister of Defense
Barnett J. Danson, 29 Jun 78. Ltr is reproduced in Final
Report (S-Revw Jul 99), "Joint U.S. -Canada Air Defense
Study," Oct 79, p A-6 (Doc 104).
177. Journal of Discussions and Decisions (S-Decl 31 Dec
08), "151 Meeting of the PJBD, 11-14 Oct 78," p 16 (material
used C).
178. Msg (C-GDS-84), JCS to CINCNORAD, "Terms of Refer-
ence, Joint U.S. -Canada Air Defense Study/' 29/23S9Z Nov 78
(Doc '105) r "-"•'■■-* " •' - "" - "'*■*- ■ - ■■"'-■ ■■■
"J. Ibid.
180.' Msg (C-GDS-84), Hq NORAD/J-S to JCS/J-5, "Terms of
Reference . . .," 01/1400Z Dec 78. The following Hq ADCOM/
NORAD officers and civilians served on the Study Group: Col
Louis Churchill, Col Bait Davis, Mr. William Fischer, Mr. 5
Elton Helfrick, Maj Donald Johnson (CF), and Maj Ken Mayne
(CF). NORAD advisors to the taking Group were Col W. R.
Kenty, Col R, W. Morton (CF), and Col H. S. Tetlock (CF).
181. Ltr (S-RD), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to SecDef
Harold Brown, 3 Oct 78. Hill's fears were real enough. The
Secretary of Defense's Draft Consolidated Guidance, FY 1981-
85, dated 9 Feb 79, stated "New air defense procurement pro-
grams should not be initiated until the joint U.S. -Canadian
air defense study has been completed and its results consid-
ered in our force planning." CINCAD objected that the joint
study was but one of several documents used to determine pro-
gram objectives, and he predicted that if the study recom-
mended any programs not in current programming documents,
delays would incur in modernization while U.S. and Canadian
governmental agencies considered the study. The next version
of the CG, on 12 April, said new procurement,
such as space-based systems, should not be initiated until
the study was completed and its results considered in force
planning. (SSS (S-RD), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans
and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Draft Consolidated Policy
Guidance and Draft Consolidated Guidance," 24 Apr 79; Msg (S-
Revw-99), CINCAD/CC to JCS/CJCS, "Draft Consolidated Guidance
(CG) FY 81-85," 22/2010Z Feb 79.)
182. SSS (U), Col U, R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Pro-
grams, ADCOM, to NORAD/CC, et si, "JUSCADS Conference, 15-15
Feb 79," 8 Feb 79, Kith 3 atchs.
'■■ 183.*"'SSS*'.(U), : Hai" i Ges''?(CFJiR,'..R. Barber/'NORAD/DCS Plans
and Programs ,• to CC et/al," "Joint U.S. /Canada Air Defense
Study Status Report and Current Task Plan," 6 Mar 79.
184 : . SSS (11), Col (CF) H. S. Tetlock, Asst DCS/Plans
and Programs, NORAD, to CC et al, "Joint U.S. -Canada Air De-
fense Study, Preliminary Results Briefing," 9 Apr 79, with
atch (S-Decl 31 Dec 08), "Point Paper", (Doc 106); SSS (C-Decl
18 Apr 85), Col 1. L. Churchill, Spec Asst, DCS/Plans and Pro-
grams, NORAD, to CC et al, "JUSCADS Meeting, 11-12 Apr 79--
Trip Report," 18 Apr 79,. with 1 2 atchs (Doc 107); SSS (C-Decl
9 May 85), Col W. R. Kenty, 'Asst DCS/Plans and Programs: AD-
"COM, -to"N/CC^t* t al'!- f "JUSCADS', i,i n5 'May-79? ritWstch' TDoc^'""'
108).
185. Itr (S-Decl 19 Apr 85), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD,
to It Gen R. L. Lawson, Dir of Plans and Policy (J-5), JCS,
27 Apr 79 (Doc 98).
186. SSS (C-Decl 9 May.SS), Col W. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/, a.
Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to K/CC, "Joint U.S. -Canada Air '
Defense Study (JUSCADS)," 15 May 79, with 1 atch:. Memo (C-
Decl 9 May 85), JCS Vice Dir (J-S) to Dir Joint Staff, 12 May
79, with 1 atch, Memo (C-Decl 9 May 85), JCS Vice Dir (J-5)
to Mr. Siena (Doc 108); SSS (S-Revw 4 Jun 85), Brig Gen If. E.
Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to N/CC et al, "Re-
port of Joint JUSCADS Dorking Group Meeting," 4 Jun 7J, with
1 atch: Summary (S-Revw 4 Jun 85), of Key Points of Briefing
(Doc 109).
187. Msg (S-Revw 4 Jun 85) , CINCNORAD/CD to 0SD/1SA,
NDHQ/ADM POL, "JUSCADS Tentative Conclusions Briefing," 06/
2130Z Jun 79 (Doc 110) .
188. Talking Paper on Joint U.S. -Canada Air Defense
Study (JUSCADS) (S-Revw Jun 99), prepared by Col L. L.
Churchill, 17 Oct 79 (Doc 111); SSS (S-Decl 50 Aug 85), Col
If. E. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to N/CC et
al, "JUSCADS Joint Working Group Memorandum to Mr. Aldridge,
Study Director," 4 Sep 79, with 1 atch: Joint Working Group
Memo, »ith 1 atch (S-Decl 30 Aug 8S) (Doc 112); Msg (S-Decl-
85), NORAD/J-S to OSD/1SA, and NDHQ/ADM POl, "NORAD Comments
on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep 79," 02/1S00Z Oct 79 (Doc 113);
Msg (S-Revw Jul 99), Hq NORAD/J-5 to OSD/ISA and NDHQ/ADM POl,
"NORAD Comments on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep 79," 05/20302 Oct
79 (Doc 114).
189. Ltr (S-Revw Jul 99), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to
Mr. James V.- Siena, Dep Asst Sec (Eur and NATO Affairs), OSDf
n.s., 4 Oct 79 (Doc 115). An identical letter was sent to
Mr. John F. Anderson, Asst Dep Min (Policy), NDHQ, Ottawa.
190. Final Report (S-Revw Jul 99), "Joint U.S. /Canada
Air Defense Study," Oct 79, pp-1-3, 1-15, 1-17 (Doc 104).
191. ltr (S-Revw Jul 99), Hill to Siena, 4 Oct 79 (Doc
115).
192. SSS (S-Revw Jul 99), Maj Gen (CF) C. A. LaFrance,
OCS/Plans and Programs, NORAD, to N/CC, et al, "Joint U.S./.
Canada Air„Defense, ! Study-.(JUSCADS),".17 Oct 79 (Doc lI6)rMsg"<<
(S-GtS 18 Oct 85), Secstate to AMEMBASST Ottawa, "Joint U-.S./-
Canada Air Defense Study (JUSCADS)," 18/17062 Oct 79 (Doc 117);
Msg (U), JCS-J-5 to CINCNORAD/J-S, "Future Policy for North
American Air/Defense," 06/16237, Nov 79 (Doc. 118).
193.' Briefing (S-Revw Jul 99), Mr. Pete Aldridge, Study
Director, to General Hill, 8 Nov 79 (Historian in attendance);-
Msg (S-Revw 99), CINCNORAD/CC to OASD/ISA, .and NDHQ/ADM (POl)',
"JUSCADS Final Results Briefing,"- 14/2310Z Nov 79 (Doc 119);
Msg (U).,. NORAD/J-S to.JCS/J-5,."N0RAD-Coiments on JUSCADS
Final Report," 28/22502 Nov 79 (Doc 120); Ltr (U), Gen J. E.
Hill, CINCNORAD, to Mr. James V. Siena, Dep Asst Sec (Eur and
NATO Affairs), OSD, n.s., 21 Dec 79 (Doc 121); Msg (C-Dttl'26
Dec 85), SecDef/USDP to CINCNORAD, for Gen Hill froa J. V,
Siena, "JUSCADS Final Results Briefing," 26/231SZ Dec 79 (Doc
122).
194. Ltr' (S-Revw-99), Gen Hill to Gen Jones, n.s., 28 Nov
79, with 1 atch: "Policy Paper" (Doc 123),
195. Policy Paper (S-Revw 23 Nov 99), "NORAD Proposal
for 3 United States-Canada Policy for the Air Defense of the
North American Continent," to Ltr (S-Revw 23 Nov 99), Gen J. E.
Hill, CINCNORAD, to Gen D. C. Jones, CJCS, n.s., 28 Nov 79
(Doc 123).
196. Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense (S-Revw 4 Dec
99), from Vice Admiral Thor Hanson, Mr, Joint Staff (for the
JCS), "Policy Recommendations for North American Air Defense,"
(JCSH- 339-79), 10 Dec 79 (Doc 124).
197. Ltr (S-Revw 19), It Gen J. V. Hartinger, CINCNORAD,
to Hq' USAF/XO, "North American Air Defense . . .," with 1
atch: Talking Paper (S-Revw 99), "NORAD Views of the Joint
^U.S./Canada'AirtDefense Study," 18 Jan' 80 (Doc 125); Interest
"■Paper '(S-Revw 15 Sail 2000); 'Tolicy Recomiendations . . .,"
'Lt Col &?S. Mar,' XPXA, 15 Jan 80 (Doc 126),
.'■ ■ ' ■ ■:'',) ' ' '
■■;■ 198,'- Hist of ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 252; See Appendixes
XII, XIII, and XIV,. this history.
200. Hist of ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 7S, p 250; See Appendix
XI, this. history'..
«^W.5,01riCh/ri^i,Dl, ? .ADC»R,e.rsonnel„Strength.(Includinf,»AD- ,;.
iC0M),\31 Dec 7.9"-('see. Appendix XIV); Chart (U), NORAD Joint
Table 'of Distribution Strength, 31 Dec 79 (see Appendix XI) .
202. Hist Rprts.(U), DCS/Personnel to Office of Hist,'' .
Jan-Jun 79, 31 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 16 Jan 80 (Office of.
Hist file 25.5)., •
■ 203.' B Ltr itli>:ADCOM DCS/Intelligence to the NORAD/ADCOM
staff , .subj : ' .Internal Reorganization of NORAD-ADCOM/IN, 5 Dec
79, with. 1'atch:, ADCOM/IN isg (U), 3022302 Nov 7.9 (Doc 127).
2.04. Hist.Rprts (0), DCS Intelligence to Office 'of Hist,
Jan-Jun 79, 2. Aug 79, and Jul-Dec 79, IS Jan 80- (Office of
Hist file 25.8). .
205. Hist Rprts (S-Rcvn-99) (material used D), DCS/
Operations to Office of Hist, Jan-Jun 79, 21 Aug 79, and Jul-
Dec 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of Hist file 25.4).
. 206. Hist Rprts (U), DCS/Logistics to Office of Hist.,
Jan-Jun 79, Z5 Jul 79, and Jul -Dec 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of
Hist, file 25.11).
207. Hist Rprts (S-Decl-09) (items used II), DCS/Plsns,
Policy, Programs, and Requirements to Office of Hist., Jan-
Jun 79, 19 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, IS Jan 80 (Office of Hist,
file 25.16).
208. Hist Rprts (11), DCS/Comiunicatiotis, Electronics,
and Computer Services to Office of Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 25 Jul
79, and Jul-Dec 79, 7 Feb 80 (Office of Hist file 25.10).
210. Hist Rprts (B), DCs/Communications, Electronics,
and Computer Services to Office of Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 25 Jul
79, and Jul-Dec 79, 7 Feb 80 (Office of Hist file 25.10).
211. ■ Hist Rprts (U), DCS/Comptroller to Office of Hist.,
Jan-Jun 79, 26 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 10 Jan 80 (Office of
Hist, file 25.1).
212. Hist Rprts (U), Dir of Public Affairs to Office of
Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 27 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 14 Jan 80 (Of-
.fice of Hist, file 25.12); msg (U), USAF.to ALMAJCOM,^272130Z
213. Hist Rprts (U), Judge Advocate to Office of Hist.,
Jan-Jun 79, -30 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 15 Jan 80 (Office- of
Hist, file 25.9). ■
214. Hist Rprts (U), Dir of Admin to Office of Hist.,
Jan-Jun 79; 30 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 25 Jan 80 (Office of s
Hist, file 25.2). ,
215. Hist Rprts (D),- Inspector General to Office of
Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 17 Aug 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 22 Jan 80 (Of-
fice of Hist, file 25.7)..
216. Hist Rprts (U), Chief of Safety to Office of Hist.
Jan-Jun 79, 24 Jul 79, and Jul-Sep 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of
Hist. file 25.13).
217. Hist Rprt (II), Command Surgeon to Office of Hist.,
Jan-Jun 79, 24 Jul 79, and Jul-Sep 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of
Hist, file 25.14).
^-^». H i" J S I J 9 l ShWHM!, t S s T ,of,,iM -'
CDoc U 1 ^. H " TORA ^ ADC0 " Staff Bullets No. J9 (U] , 4 Oct 79
130). ^ M tl "' Hq ADC0M * H t »SAF, 301930Z Nov 79 (Doc
223. Ibid.
sonnel, Aptil 1979 (Doc 131) D " ° f CmllM Fer -
Ctvilia^pW^ ( A U DC0H r °LlT rn f0r ?£f i0nal Transf « «*
to dl DCS L% cia Itaff " s , D °L M^ ltt '?'• ADC0H
Mr. cSesT^S; S^maT^ 0ff T s f ""• » it! >
16 Apr 80. ■ Civilian Personnel, DCS/Personnel ,
Aug 79 VuS)^ ADC ° M t0 DMS 4 a " d 5 > ««1 "HP, 241530Z -
P»lfc M ft ?i f C ^ P J"S™}.«>ai«. "AERODW, subj :
136). iranster of Function, 4 Sep 79 (Doc
229. MsHU),ADCOMtoUSAF, 071800Z J un 79 (Doc 137) .
231. Hist. Rprt (U), ADC DCS/Personnel to Office of
Hist., Jul-Dec 79, 16 Jan 80 (Office of Hist, file 25.5).
232. Intvw [U), Mildred K. Johnson, Office of Hist.,
with Mr. Charles L. Shinn, Director of Civilian Personnel,
DCS/Personnel, 16 Apr 80.
233. Ibid.; Ltr (U), 46AERODW, subj: Notice of Reduc-
tion-in-Force, 1 Nov 79 (Doc 139); Briefing to CINCAD by AD-
COM DCS/Personnel, (no date) (Doc 140).
234. lot™ (U), Mildred W. Johnson, Office of Hist.,
with Mr. C. I. Shinn, Director of Civilian Personnel, DCS/
Personnel, ADCOM, 16 Apr 80; Ltr (U), Vice CINCAD'to all DCS
and special staff, ADCOM, subj: Civilian Personnel Hiring \
Freeze - Peterson AFB Complex, 10 Apr 79 (Doc 141) .
235. Ibid.
236. interest Paper (U), DCS/Plans and Programs, ACCOM,
subj: FY 79 Officer Grade Reduction, 9 Mar 79 (Doc 142).
237. Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Prograus, ADCOM, to staff,
subj: Officer Grade Reduction, 20 Mar 79 (Doc 143).
238. Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Prograus, ADCOM, to staff,
.suhj :..,ADCOM-Officer»-.Grade.-.Rednctionr 9-Feh'*79 "(Doc 144) ; *■• ■ -
Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CINCAD, subj: AD-
COM Officer Grade Reduction, 8 Mar 79 (Doc 145) ; Memo (11) ,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to Chief of Staff and DCS/Op-
erations, ADCOM, subj: ADCOM Officer Reduction, 4 Apr 79
(Doc 146).
239. Ltr (U), f.INCNORAB to USAF, (no subj), 5 Apr 79
(Doc 147); Ltr (IT), DSAF to CINCNORAD/ADCOM, subj: Reporting
Procedures for the FY 1980 General Officer Manning and Position
Review.Board, 13 Feb 79 (Doc 148); ltr (li), Lt Gen B. L. Davis,
DCS Manpower and Personnel, USAF, to Gen Janes 1. Hill, CINC-
NORAD/ADCOM, (no subj), 15 Mar 79 (Doc 149).
240. Memo (D), Director of Manpower and Organization to
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: General Officer Reduc-
tion, 9 May 79 (Doc 150); Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Programs,
ADCOM to DCS/Intelligence, ADCOM, subj: General Officer Re-
duction, 11 May 79 (Doc 151).
241. Msg (S-Decl-85), SecState to AMEMBASSY, Ottawa,
1923182 Sep 79 (Doc 4).
242. Ltr (S-Decl-86), NORAD to 20NR, subj : Joint Table
of Distribution (1)), 2 Apr 79 (Into used 0) (Doc 152); Ltr
(D), Chief of Staff, NORAD to DCS/Plans and Programs, NORAD,
subj : U.S. Aray Manpower Resources in NORAD, 11 Apr 79 (Doc
153); ltr (tl), Chief of Staff, NORAD to NORAD Regions, subj:
Coordination of Out of Cycle Change to the NORAD Joint Han-
power Prograi (JMP), 13 Jun 79 (Doc 154); Ltr (U), NORAD' ■
Dir/Manpower and Organization to JCS, subj: 1 Oct 79 Out of
Cycle Change to the NORAD/ADCOK Joint Manning Prograi (JMP) ,
14 Aug 79 (Doc 1SS) .
243. Memo (S-Revw-98), DCS/Operations, NORAD to DCS/
Plans and Prograns, NORAD, subj: Increased Manpower Authori-
zations for Det 1, NORAD COC, Tinker AFB, OK (U)/2 May 79, '
with 1 atch (S-Revw-98): NORAD/DO Proposed Ltr ((I), 3 Kay 79
(Doc. 156). '
244. Memo (S-Revw-98), DCS/Plan, NORAD to DCS/Opera-
tions, NORAD, subj: Increased Manpower Authorizations for
Det 1, NORAD COC, Tinker AFB, OK (0), 16 May 79, with 1 atch
(S-Revw-98): Hq ADCOM/XPA ltr, 14 May 79 (Doc 157); Ltr (U),
USAF (MPMP) to ADCOM, subj : Increased Manpower Requirements
for F.-3A NORAD Mission Crews, 30 Jul 79, with 1 atch (U):
Methodology (Doc 1S8).
... ,™?.J5-... Memo..4>r,,Record.-(lJ) , DCS/Plans and Programs; -AD- -~*
"COM; subj: Redistribution of SPADOC Resources, 11 Jul 79
(Doc 159).
246. Ltr (U), ADCOM to Air Divisions, subj: Weapons
Controller Manning and Experience Levels, 16 Jan 79 (Doc
160).
247. Ibid,; Dir of Assignments. DCS/Personnel , ADCOM,
21 Sep 79.
248. Hist, of ADCOM (S-Revw-99) (material used II),
1 Jan 77-31 Dec 78, p 35.
249. Hist. Rprts (U), DCS/Comptroller to Office of
Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 26 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 10 Jan 80
(Office of Hist, file 25.1); Briefing (U), Monthly Manage-
ment Review by the Comptroller, Col Louis R. Ravetti, 26 Oct
79 (Doc 161).
250. Ibid.
251. Briefing (U), Monthly Manageient Review by the
Comptroller, Col Louis B. Ravetti, 26 Oct 79.
252. Hist. Rprt (U), DCS/Cmptroller to Office of
Hist., Jul-Dec 79, 10 Jan 80 (Office of Hist, file 25.1);
Briefing (U), Monthly Management Review by the Comptroller,
Col Louis R. Ravetti, 26 Oct 79.
253. Ibid.
CHAPTER II - BALLISTIC MISSILE SURVEILLANCE AND WARNING
1. SSS (U), Col f.R. Wisneski, Command IG, to CC
et ai, "Summary of USAF/IG Inspection Report USAF Support
to S5RAD," 30 Jan 80, with 1 Atch: Summary (S-Decl IS Dec
99) (Doc 162); TIG Report (S-Decl IS Dec 99/Privileged
Document), "Special Inspection of USAF Support to NORAD,"
FN 80-2056, 3-15 Dec 79, distributed 13 Jan 80, pp 9, 16
(Doc 163). An earlier briefing of IG findings to CIKCNORAD,
on IS December, drew criticism from General Hill and his
staff that it was hastily done and superficial. General
Hill recommended the team return and complete the job. The
IG agreed, but whereas it had formerly not planned to prepare
a written report, now it decided to do,so. On IS January
the Deputy IG for Inspection and Safety briefed CINCNORAD
on the above report. It contained recommended corrective
actions to which NORAD must officially respond in early
1980. (Briefing of the initial report by Coi R. Nolan,
AFIG, to CINCNORAD, IS Dec 79 (Doc 164); SSS (U) Haj Gen
B.K. Brown, DCS/Ons, NORAD, to NORAD/CC, "CISC Visit with
USAF IG," 2 Jan SO, with Atch (C-Decl Jan 2000), "Talking
Paper on USAF Special Inspection of NORAD/ADCOM," prep, bv
ifej P.E. Rose, IGY, ADCOM 2 Jan 80 (Doc 165).
2. TIG Report (S-Decl 15 Dec 99/Privileged Document),
13 Jan 80, pp 5-6; Rpt (FOUO), "MGR Operator Events" nrep.
by T/Sgt T.A. Howard, 14 Hot 79; Msg (S-Revw 23 Nov 99), Hq
N0RAD/D0 to JCS/J3/C3S, "False Indications at 09/155U Nov
79," 26/16S8Z Nov 79 (Doc 166); Memorandum (S-Revw 19 Nov 99),
for Dep Dir for Stra C 3 Systems and Dep Dir for Ops (Current
Ops), JCS, from Col J.J. Kamp, Chief, NEACP, "NEACP Events in
Response to Missile Threat Assessment Conference, 9 November
1979," 19 Nov 79 (Doc 167).
5. A collection of press articles it included as
(Doc 168).
4. "False Alert of Missiles Sows Fear," Philadelphia
Inquirer, 11 Nov 79, p 3; Msg (S-GDS 11/27/85), SecState to
US Mission NATO and all NATO capitals, "Inf : Soviets and
the False Missile Alert," 28/00222 Nov 79 (Doc 169).
''. Memorandum for the Record (U), "Continuation of
Congressional Briefings in Response to NORAD Alert inquiries,"
prep, ty Maj Pat Sweeney, OATSD (Legislative Affairs), 5 Dec
79 (Doc 170 ).
6. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 87), Hq NORAD/J- 3 to ASD/C 3 I
et al (personal for Dr. Dinneen, Lt Gen Shutler, and Lt Gen
Dick~Tnson), "Meeting Between Members of NORAD Staff and Sen.
Hart," 20/2H5Z Dec 79 (Doc 171 ).
7. Ltr (U) Col P. A. Deering, Dep Condr for Data Auto-
mation, NORAD/ADCOM Combat Operations Center, to ADC0M/D02,
"Operational Review Board Status," 29 Nov 79, with 1 Atch:
"FACC Ltr 28 Nov 79," (Doc 172 j; Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq
NORAD/J- 3 to JCS/C 3 S, for It Gen Dickinson from Maj Gen Brown,
"NORAD ORB Update," 29/1708Z Nov 79 (Doc 173 ); Msg (S-Revw
30 Nov 99), Hq N0RAD/D0 to JCS/J-3/c'S/ IWICS Evaluation
Office, "False Indications at 99/1SS1Z Nov 79," 30/19S6Z Nov
79 (Doc 174 ); Msg (S-Revw 5 Dec'88), NORAD/J-6 to Hq USAF
/XOX, "Missile Marning Scenario Control," 05/0215Z Dec 79
(Doc 175 ); Background Paper on 9 Noveuber 1979 False Indi-
cations (S-Revw 30 Nov 99), OPft NORAD/DOPC (Maj Sapp). 26
Dec 79 (Doc 176 ); SSS (U), It Col K.E, Lager, Actg Dir,
User/Interface Configuration/Control, DCS/Ops, NORAD/ADC0M/ADC,
to H0RAD/DO, "Action Item Management Book," 4 Jan 80, with 1
Atch (S-Revw 4 Jan 99), "Management Book Contents," (Doc 17/ ).
8. Msg (U), Hq NORAD/DOPC to Hq ADCOS et al, "NORAB/
ADCOM Regulation 55-104, 12 Sep 79 "21/1930Z Bec"79; Msg
(S-Revw 26 Dec 99), Hq NORAD/J-3 to JCS/J-5/C 3 S, "Suspension
of 427M Development Testing," 26/1415Z Dec 79 (Doc 178 ).
9. Msg (S-Revw 30 Nov 99), Hq NORAD/DO to JCS/J-3/
C 3 S/lfNMCS Eva! Office, "False Indications at 09/1SSIZ Nov
79," 30/19S6Z Nov 79 (Doc 174 ); Memorandum (C-Revw 15 May
K), from Col J.K. Lowe, Dir Air Def Ops, ADCOM/DOO, to
President, ORB (Col Brandt), "Operations Review Board (PHASE
III' Report)," 14 Nov 79 (Doc 179 ); Memorandum (S-Revw IS
May 99), from Col W.H. Riley, Dir of C»d and Con Systems,
ADCOM/DOC, "Operations Review Board (PHASE III Report),"
16 Nov 79 (Doc 180 )i Msg (S-Revw 21 Nov 99), Hq ADCOM/DOO
to all NORAD Regions et al, "Unit Response to NWS /TiORAD
Alert Harning System /Hfarning Alert," 21/2200Z Nov 79
(Doc in ); Msg (S-Revw 28 Nov 99), Hq NORAD/DO to JCS/J3,
personal for Lt Gen Shutler froi Ma] Gen Brown, "Missile
Attack Warning, " 29/00012 Nov 79 (Doc 182); Msg (S-Revw
28 Nov 99), Hq NORAD/DO to AIG 7812, "Missile Attack
Warning, " 30/2307Z Nov 79 (Doc 183); Msg (S-Revw 7 Dec 99),
Hq NORAD/DO to AIG 7812, "NAS Alter Warning Test," 07/1728Z
Dec 79 (Doc 184); Msg (S-Revw 4 Dec 99), Hq NORAD/DOO at
ALL NRs et al, "Missile Attack Warning," 18/19S2Z Dec 79;
Msg (S-Revw IS May 98), Hq NORAD/DO to AIG 7812 et al,
"Missile Attack Warning/Interim Emergency Change"! to N/A
Reg 55-19, Vol III, 15 May 79," 17/1800Z Jan 80 (Doc 185);
Msg (I)), Hq N0RAD/J6 to JCS/C 3 S, "Review of NORAD Alert
System (NAS) Circuits," 25/2300Z Jan 80 (Doc 186).
10. Interest Paper (FOUO) on Proposed Relocation of
the Command Section to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, pre-
pared bv Lt Col P.M. Fleming, XPXP, 7 .Jan 80 (Doc 187);
Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD to Chairman JCS, n.s.,
27 Dec 79 (Doc 188).
11. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 87), Hq NORAD/J3 to ASD/C 3 !
et al, personal for Dr. Dinneen, Lt Gen Shutler, and Lt Gen
DTcHnson, "Meeting Between Members of the NORAD Staff and
Sen Hart," 20/2115Z Dec 79 (Doc 171).
12. Hist (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) of ADCOM, 1977-78, p 103
(material used S-Revw 96); atch I, Background Paper on
Missile Naming and Attack Characterization (S-Decl 8 Nov
85), prepared by Maj iiilkins/XPDW, 8 Nov 79, to SSS, Lt Col
P. M. Fleming, Ch, Progs 5 Rqmts Div, XP to A/XP, "Talking
Papers for 1979 CINC's Conference," 13 Nov 79 (Doc 189);
Msg (S-Decl 13 Sep 99), C1KCAD/CC to JCS/CJCS, "FY-81 CJCS
Military Posture Statement," 18/2055Z Sep 79 (Doc 190);
ADCOM Command and Control System Master Plan," (S-Revw
1 Jan 99), 30 Nov 79, pp 3-15, 3-16; Interest Paper on
BMEB Modernization (S-Decl 10 Jan 86), prepared by Maj
D. L. Klkins/XPDlffi, 11 Jan 80 (Doc 191).
13. Msg (U), Hq AFSC/SDE to Hq ADCOM/XPD, "BMF.NS
Modernization," 15/22002 Feb 79 (Doc 192); Msg (S-Revw 99),
AfSC/CC to CSAF/CC, for Gen Allen from Gen Slay, "Enhanced
Perimeter Acquisition Radar Characterization," 16/15162 Mar
79 (Doc 193); Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 91), SSO ADCOM/CC to AFSSO
USAF/CC, for Gens Allen, J. A. Hill, and Slay, from Gen
J. E. Hill, EPARCS," 28/ZZ20Z Mar 79 (Doc 194),
14. SSS (S-Decl 6 Feb 85), Maj Gen (CF) R. R. Barber,
DCS/Plans and Programs, NORAD, to N/CC, "BMEWS Modernization,"
16 Feb 79, with 1 atch, Msg (S-Decl 6 Feb 85), CINCAD/CV to
Hq USAF/RD, "BMEKS Modernization . . .", 12/18002 Mar 79
(Doc 195).
15. SSS (U) , Brig Gen ». E. Lindemari, DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "BMEKS IBM 7090 Replacement,"
18 May 79 (Doc 196). —
16. Background Paper on BMEWS Modernization (0), pre-
pared by Capt Harmon/XPDS, 27 Jul .79.
17. Hist (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) of ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 105-
104 (material used S-Decl 96); Talking Paper on BMEWS Mod-
ernization (S-Decl 31 Dec 98), prepared by Capt Harmon/XPDS,
10 Jan 79 (Doc 197).
18. Background Paper on BMEWS Replacement Study (S-Revw
27 Sov 98), prepared by Capt Harmon/XPDS, 25 Apr 79 (Doc
198) to SSS (U), Col J. P. Foster, Dep Dir Missile and Space
Defense, ADCOM, to A/JP, "BMEKS Replacement Study," 25 Apr
79.
19. Ltr (TS-XPX79-027-Revw 18 Jul 98), General James E.
Hill, CINCAD, to Hon. H. R. Brown, SecDef, n.s., 13 Jul 79
(material used S). (U) The Air Force study supportive of
BMEWS modernization was finally briefed to Dr. Dinneen, on
14 August. The study of various alternatives continued
through the end of the year, however.
20. Ltr (U), Gen James t. Hill, CINCAD, to Hon Gerald P-
Dinneen, Asst SecDef (C3I), n.s., 31 Jul 79, with 1 atch
(S-Decl 30 Jul 85), "Ballistic Missile Early earning System
(BMEWS) Modernization vis-a-vis Phased Array" (Doc 199).
'21. Talking Paper on BMEWS Modernization (S-Decl 31 Dec
98), prepared by Capt Harmon/XPDS, 10 Jan 79 (Doc 197); SSS
(S-Decl 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen W. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "BMEWS Improvement Status," 8 Jan
79 (Doc ZOO); SSS (U), Col ». R, Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "BMEKS Improvement Status,"
22 Jan 79 (Doc 201).
22. SSS (U), Col K. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Pro-
grams, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, r, BMEWS IBM 7090 Replacement,"
6 Sep 79 (Doc 202); Msg (S-Decl 20 Oct 85), CINCNORAD/CC
to CSAF/CC, "BMEKS Modernization," 15/1730Z Oct 79 (Doc 203).
23. Msg (U), Hq AFSC/ACB to Hq USAF/ACB, "Proposed
Deferral FY-80 BMEWS Modernization," 18/143SZ Sep 79; Msg
(II), Hq ESD/ACB to Hq AFSC/ACB, "Deferral of FY 80-BMEWS
Modernization Funding," 07/2008Z Sep 79; SSS (U) , Brig Gen
W. E. Lindenan, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et
al_, "BMEWS Modernization," 25 Oct 79, with 2 atch, Memo-
randum for Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research,
Development and Logistics), from Gerald P. Dinneen, Principal
Deputy, USDR5E, IS Oct 79 (Doc 204); Memorandum for Assistant
Secretary of Defense (C3l) (S-Decl 31 Dec 95), from Eugene H.
Kopf, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
Research, Development, and Logistics, "BMEWS Upgrade . . .",
16 Oct 79 (Doc 205).
24. Msg (S), Hq USAF/RDSD to Hq AFSC/SDE, "BMEWS tin-
grade," 29/14302 Nov 79.
25. Msg (0), Hq AFSC/SDE to Hq USAF/RDXP, "BMEWS Modern-
ization Funding," 04/2004Z Dec 79 [Doc 206); Background Paper
on BMEWS Modernization (S-Decl 10 Dec-85), prepared by Maj
Wilkins/XPDW, 12 Dec 79 (Doc 207); Interest Paper on BMEWS
Modernization (S-Decl 10 Jan 86), prepared by Iftj Wilkins/
XPDWG, 11 Jan 80 (Doc 191).
26. Ltr (S-Revw 5 Dec 98), Maj Gen W. C. Moore, VCINCAD
(for Gen J. E. Hill), to Hq USAF/PA, "FY 82-86 Consolidated
Guidance," 6 Dec 79.
27. This background information has been taken from
COiWD/ADC histories for the period 1971-78.
28. Msg (0), 6 MKS/DO to Hq ADCOM/DOFK, "PAVE PAWS
Reliability and Availability Demonstration," 03/18302 Jan 79;
SSS (0), Col L. J. Johnson, Dir of Space and Missile Warning
Operations, ADCOM, to A/DO, "Current Status of Otis DT6E
and IOTP," 13 Mar 79; Msg (U), 6 MWS/XPD to ADC0M/XPD,
"AN/FPS-11S (PAVE PAWS) Initial Operation Test and Evaluation
(0T5E)," 02/18252 Mar 79,
29. Msg (U), OSAF/OIP to Hq AFSC/0IP et al_, "PAVE PAWS
East Announcement," 05/22302 Apr 79; Msg (0), ESD/OCL to Hq
AFSC/DISM, "PAVE PAWS-OtiS AFB Status," 12/19452 Apr 79.
30. ADCOM DCS/Plans Historical Report (XPDS), Jan-Jun
Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/X0 to ESD/OCL, "PAVE PAWS Sub-
1 1S/2000Z Jun 79 (Doc 208).
52, Msg (S-Decl 1 Oct 89), Hq ADCOM/DOF, to NMCC/
Surveillance Officer, "Status of PAVE PAHS Missile Warning
Data," 06/23102 Jul 79 (Doc 209}.
33. Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/DO to Hq USAF/XOO et al, "Status
of PAVE PAWS Missile Warning Data--The 60 Day Dual Operation,'
31/Z0S0Z Jul 79.
34. Interview (U), John W. Dennison, ADCOH/HO, with
Mr. F. E. Brooke, ADCOM/DEMUS, 21 Sep 79; Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec
99), CINCAD to AIC 9S1, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary,
1 Apr-30 Sep 79," 16/0105Z Oct 79; Msg (U), CINCAD/CV to
AFSC/CV, "Otis PAVE PAWS Power Problems," 09/13507 Aug 79
(Doc 210); Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/DE to ESD/DE/XP, "Otis PAVE
PAKS Electric Generation Plant," 14 Aug 79; Msg (U), Hq
ADCOM/DO to Hq USAF/XOX/XOO/XOKS, "Otis PAVE PAKS Power
Problems and Continued Operation of AN/FSS-7's at Ft Fisher
AFS NC and Charleston AFS ME," 15/19452 Aug 79 (Doc 211),
(II) Citizens groups had protested the building of both sites
because of alleged health hazards posed by microwave radia-
tion emanating from the radars. Lawsuits were filed onboth
coasts to halt construction. Those wishing to follow the
environmental issues involved are directed to History Elec-
tronics Systems Division, (S-Decl 31 Dec 2007), Air Force
Systems Command, 1977, pp 183-187; and, History of ESD
(S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1978, pp 3S-44.
55. Msg (0), CINCAD/CV to AFSC/CV, "Otis PAVE PAWS
Power Problems," 09/13502 Aug 79 (Doc 210).
36. Msg (0), Hq AFSC/SO to CINCAD/CV, "Otis PAVE PAWS
Power Problems," 20/1212Z Aug 75.
37. Msg (U), ESD/OCL/DE to Hq ADCOM/XPD, "PAVE PAWS-
Otis AF8 Power Plant," 28/1400Z Aug 79, atch 6, "6 MWS Power
Plant Problem," to Staff Action Memorandum (0), from XP
(Col Kenty), to XPD, XPX, and XPC, "PAVE PAWS Deficiencies,"
17 Oct 79; Interest Paper on 6th Missile Warning Squadron
(Otis AFB) PAVE PAWS (S-Decl 1 Oct 89), prepared by CMSgt
Martin, ADCOM/XPDlf, 17 Oct 79 (Doc 212),
38. Msg (S-Decl 31 Oct 89), Hq ADCOM/DO to Hq USAF/
X0O/PAX/ACB, "PAVE PAWS Missile Warning Data," 07/16452 Sep
79 (Doc 213); Msg (0), CINCAD/CV to Hq USAF/RDS/XOK/XOO/XOX,
"Otis PAVE PAWS Power Problems," 10/18402 Sep 79 (Doc 214);
Talking Paper on PAVE PAKS (S-Decl 27 Sep 87), prepared by
Maj Nelson, ADCOM/XPDW, 26 Sep n (Doc 215); Msg (Uj, Hq
ADC0M/D0 to Hq USAF/X0O/PAX/ACB, "Otis PAVE PAWS and AN/FSS-
7 Sixty Day Dual Operations," 28/214SZ Sep 79 (Doc 216).
39. Interest Paper on 6th Missile Warning Squadron
(Otis APB) PAVE PAWS (S-Decl 1 Oct 89) , prepared by CMSgt
Martin, ADCOM/XPDW, 17 Oct 79 (Doc 212).
40. Msg (»), Hq ADCOM/BO to Hq USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB,
"Termination of Otis PAVE PAWS and AM/FSS-7 Sixty Day Dual
Operations," C7/1710Z Nov 79 (Doc 217).
41. Talking Paper on Otis PAVE PAHS (0), prepared by
Maj L. P. Nelson, ADC/XPDW, 14 Jan 80 (Doc 218).
42. Ur (0), Col P.. P. Atkinson, Jr., Commander 14MWS
(ADCOM), to CINCAD/CV, "14 MS Quarterly Activity Report
for the Period 1 January-31 March 1979; Msg (II), Hq USAF/
XOO/PAX to Hq ADCOH/DO/AC, "Extension of AN/FSS-7 Operations
at Charleston AFS, ME and Pt Fisher AFS, NC," 1S/1400Z Apr
79; SSS (li), Lt Col F. t. Nance, Director of Space and Missile
Warning Operations, DCS/Ops, ADCOM, to DO, "Inpacts of AN/
FSS-7 East Coast Extension," with 2 afchs (Doc 219); Msg (0),
Hq USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB to Hq NORAD/DO/AC/XP, "Extension of
AN/FSS-7 Operations . . . ", 20/1531Z Jun 79 (Doc 220); Msg
(II), Hq USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB/XOX/AC/XP to Hq ADCOM/DP/AC/XP,
"Continued Operation of AN/fSS-7 Radars . . . ", 07/1330Z
Sep 79 (Doc 221); Msg (U), Hq ADC0M/D0 to Hq SAC/AC/SX,
"Continued East Coast FSS-' Operation," 16/2205Z Nov 79
(Doc 222); Msg (D) , Hq SAC/ACB to Hq ADCOM/CC/ACB, "Con-
tinued East Coast FSS-7 Operation," 20/2300Z Nov 79 (Doc
223); Msg (0), CWCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS, "East Coast AN/FSS-
7 SLBM Detection and Naming Radar Continued Operation,"
19/1420Z Nov 79 (Doc 224).
43. Msg (0), CINCNORAD/CC to Det 5 14 MWS/CC and Det 6
14 MWS/CC, "Special Recognition," Z1/2000Z Dec 79 (Doc 225).
44. Hist (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 119-120
(material used S-Revw 98); SSS (S-Decl 1 Dec 98), Brig Gen
W. E. Ljndeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et aj_,
"Position Paper on PARCS," 10 Jan 79, with 1 atch, "Position
Paper" (this paper references Hq ADCOM/CT psg to USAF, "FY-
79 05M Funding Distribution," 06/1501Z Dec 78.) This paper
makes the point that although PARCS had marginal value as an
ICBM sensor, and it was in that context that previous studies
had examined its usefulness, it should be retained for SLBM
coverage of northerly ocean areas and to provide satellite
tracking support (Doc 226).
45. Msg (S-Decl 1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDQ,
"EPARCS," 26/214SZ Dec 78 (Doc 227).
46. Msg (S-XGDS-3/9I), AFSSO/AFSC/CC to AFSS0/CSAF/CC,
for Gen Allen from Gen Slay, "EPARCS," 03/23302 Jan 79 (Doc
228).
47. Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 91), AFSSO/USAF/CC to AFSSO/AFSC/
CC, for Gen Slay from Gen Allen, "EPARCS," 10/1300Z Mar 79
(Doc 229).
48. Msg (S-Rem 31 Dec 91), Hq AFSC/CC to CSAF,
"EPARCS," 16/1S16Z Mar 79.
49. Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 91) , SSO/ADCCM/CC to AFSSO/
DSAF/CC, for Gens Allen, J. A. Hill, and Slay, from Gen J. E.
Hill, "EPARCS," 28/22202 Hat 79 (Doc 230).
50. Msg (S-Revw 31 Bee 91), Hq AFSC/SDE to ESD/OC,
"EPARCS," 16/1516Z Mar 79 (Doc 231).
52. Msg (ti), Hq USAF/RDSD to Hq AFSC/OC, "EPARCS,"
23/16002 Mar 79 (Doc 232).
53. Msg (S-Decl 2 Apr 98), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/RD,
"EPARCS," 11/16452 Apr 79 (Doc 233).
54. Msg (S-Decl 2 Apr 98), dq USAF/RD to CINCAD/CC,
"EPARCS," 26/13S0Z Apr 79 (Doc 234).
55. Msg (U), Hq AFSC/CV to Hq USAF/RD, "EPARCS,"
07/1555Z May 79 (Doc 235); Msg (U), Hq DSAF/XR to Hq ADCOM/
XP, "PARCS Radar Modification, PMD R-Q8043(5)," 01/15002
Jun 79 (Doc 236) .
56. CCS/Plans and Prograis Hist Rjt, (S-Decl 31 Dec
2009), XPDK, Jul-Dec 79, Tab C (material used U).
57. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, DCS/Pians,
Policy and Requirements, ADC, to A/CS et al, "EPARCS Fund-
ing," 29 Feb 80.
58. Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78 (S-R;vw 31 Dec 99), pp 111,
112 (material used (S-Rem 98)).
59. Ibid., p 112; Msg (S-Revw 2 Jan 99), Hq FTD/XO to
Hq ADCOM/DOF, "DSP Deployment, " 04/2030Z Jan 79; Msg (S-Decl
1 Dec 99), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/XOO/RDS/PAX, "DSP Launch
Initiation," 15/15302 Feb 79; Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 79), CINCAD
to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary, 1 Oct 78-31
Mar 79," 17/0045Z Apr 79.
60. Msg (S-Rev» 1 Dec 98), SAMSO/SZD to ASTC, Cape
Canaveral/LV, "DSP Launch," 31/23552 Jan 79; Msg (S-Decl
1 Dec 99), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/XOO/RDS/PAX, "DSP Deploy-
ment," 07/2300Z Mar 79; Msg (S-Revw I Dec 99), SAMSO/SZD to
6S5S ASTC, Cape Canaveral/LV, "DSP Launch Update," 02/
230OZ May 79; Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 98), AFSCF/SZB to SAMSO/
CC, "DSP Orbital Report," 11/09152 Jun 79; Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec
99), CINCAJ to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary,"
1 Apr-30 Sep 79," 16/10S7Z Oct 79.
61. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq ADCOM/DO to AFSc/SDO/
SDS, "Flight S Turnover," 10/23252 Jul 79 (Doc 237).
62. SSS (S-Decl 1 Dec 91), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Defense
Support Program (DSP) Iirorovements Status," 24 Apr 79 (Doc
238); Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq ADCOM/DO to Hq TAC/DO, "CM
System," 28/1715Z Feb 79).
63. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99) , CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/XOO/
RDS, "DSP Operational Satellites," 08/02S5Z Aug 79 (Doc 239).
64. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen U. E. lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CC st al, "Defense Support
Program (DSP) Improvements Status," 24 Apr 79 (Doc 238); Msg
(S-Revw 1 Dec 99), CiNCAD to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi-
annual Summary, 1 Apr-30 Sep 79," 16/10S7Z Oct 79 (Hist
File 22, Hist ADCOM/ADC, 1979); Msg (S-Kev* 1 Dec 2000),
CINCAD to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary, 1 Oct
79-31 Mar 80," 15/21302 Apr 80 (Hist File 22, Hist ADCOM/
ADC, 1979).
65. Ibid.; Atch 2 (S-Decl 25 Jul 91), "DSP Paper,"
to Ltr (0), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD to Hon G. P. Dinneen,
AsstSecDef (C3I), U.S., 31 Jul 79 (Doc 240).
66. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen H. E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM to A/DO, "Simplified Processing
Station (SPS) Alternatives," 12 Jan 79, with 1 Atch, Msg
(S-Decl 31 Dec 96), ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDQ et al, same
subject, 17/1930Z Jan 79 (Doc 241); Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw
31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 115-117 (material used S-Revw-96).
67. SSS (S-Decl 7 Feb 91), Brig Gen W, E. lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/DO et al, "Simplified
Processing Station (SPS) Overseas Site," 20 Feb 79, with
1 Atch, Msg (S-Decl 7 Feb 91), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/PAX
et d, same subject, 02/2125Z Mar 79 (Doc 242); Msg (S-Decl
27 Mar 85), Hq USAF/PAX to Hq ADCOM/XP, "... (SPS) Over-
seas Siting," 06/2000Z Apr 79; Msg (S-Decl 27 Mar 85), Hq
ADCOM/XO to Hq USAF/PAX ct al, "... (SPS)Overseas Siting,"
02/21302 May 79 (Doc 243T7 SSS (S-Decl 27 Mar 85), Brig
Gen If, E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/DO
et al, " . . . (SPS)Overseas Siting," 10 Dec 79, with 1
AtchT Msg (S-Decl 27 Mar 85), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/PAX
et al, " . . . (SPS) Overseas Siting," 17/14302 Dec 79
(Doc 244).
68. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 99), Brig Gen K.E. Lindetian,
DCs/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/DO, "... (SPS) Alter-
natives," 12 Jan 79, with 1 Atch, Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 96), Hq
ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDQ et al, 17/19302 Jan 79 (Doc 241).
69. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 98), Hq USAF/EDS et al to Hq
ADCOM/XP, "DSP Data Survivability Enhancements," IS/18452
Feb 79 (Doc 245).
70. Ltr (S-Decl 17 Feb 85), Hon Charles 1(. Duncan, Jr.,
DepSecDef, 20 Mar 79; Ltr (S-Decl 28 Feb 85) (Doc 246), Gen
J. E. Hill, CINCAD, to Hon Charles It. Duncan, Jr., DepSecDef,
20 Mar 79 (Doc 247).
71. Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 79), CINCAD to AIG 9S1, "Com-
mander's Semi-annual Summary, 1 Oct' 78-31 Mar 79," 17/00452
Apr 79 (Hist File 22, Hist of ADCOM, 1979); Msg (D) , Hq
USAF/XP/DO to Hq ADCOM/XP/DO, "PMD Clarification Request .
. .," 27/1530Z Mar 79; Msg (0), Hq ADCOM/DOP to Hq SAC/3E/
DOC, "Integration of SPS into CCPDS," 18/1SI5Z Apr 79.
72. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq AFTEC/
TE, "Request for SPS lOT^E Extension," 25/22002 May 79 (Doc
248); Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), AFTEC/CC to Hq ADCOM/XP/DO,
"SPS fOTSE Extension," 01/16362 Jun 79 (Doc 249); Msg fS-
Revw 31 Dec »); Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq AFTEC/TE, "Continued
SPS Test Requirements," 12/15002 Jun 79 (Doc 250).
73. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), AFTEC/CC to Hq ADCOM/XP/
DO, "Termination of SPS I0TSE," 15/2030Z Jun 79 (Doc 251);
SSS (S-Decl 14 Jun 91), Col 1. L. Churchill, Spec Asst,
(J5), Asst DCS/Plans and Programs (NORAD), to A/CV et. al,
"... (PMD) Change Request," 19 Jun 79 (Doc 252); Msg
(S-Decl 14 Jun 91), CIIOD/CV to Hq USAF/RDS , "...
(PMD) Change Request," 22/17302 Jun 79 (Doc 253).
74. Ibid.; Msg (S-Decl 12 Jul 91),' Hq USAF/XO0/RDS to
CINCAD/CV, ^Simplified Processing Stations," 12/18402 Jul
79 (Doc 254).
75. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 98), SAMSO/SZJ to Hq AFSC/SDS,
"Continued Simplified Processing Support," 01/14152 Aug 79
(Doc 255).
76. Position Paper on SPS Turnover (S-Revw 31 Dec 79),
Atch to SSS (S-Revw 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen w, E, Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CO et al, "SPS Turnover
Status Review," 20 Aug 79 (Doc 256).
77. SSS (0), Col IS. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "SPS Turnover Status Re-
view," 14 Sep 79 (Doc 2S7jTHsg (I)), Hq SD/SZ to Hq ACCOM/
XPD, "... (SPS) Turnover," 31/23002 Oct 79 (Doc 258).
78. SSS (S-Rev» 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen «. E. Lindeian,
DCS/Plans and Prograis, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "SPS Turnover
Status," 21 Nov 79 (Doc 259); Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), OLA
2162CS/LGK to 216CS Buckley ANGB," (S) Move of the SPS to
Permanent Site," 07/1310Z Nov 79.
79. Msg (S-Rev» 1 Dec 99), CINCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS/
SX, "Management Transfer Date for OLAE Hq ADCOM Cornhusker
AAP, HE," 16/22152 Nov 79 (Doc 260).
CHAPTER III - SPACE
1. Msg (S-Revw-31-Dec 99), CINCAD to AIG 951, "Cora-
mander's Semi-Annual Summary, 1 Oct 78-31 Mar 79," I7/0045Z
(in Hist File 22).
2. Msg (S-Revw-99), CIHCAD to AID 951, "Commander' 5
Semi-Annual Summary, 1 Ap-30 Sep 79," 16/01052 Oct 79 (ABC
Hist File 22); SSS {'J), Brig Gen N.E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans
and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CS et al, "MOTIF Transition Pro-
gram," 18 Sep 79 {Doc 262),
3. Activation: OLAA 46 AERODW, 1 Ap 79 (ADCOM SO G-
174, 31 Oct 78); inactivation as OLAA 46 AERODK, 1 Oct 79
(ADCOM SO C-173, 24 Sep 79); activated as OLAA, Hq ADCOM,
1 Oct 79 (ADCOM SO G-173, 24 Sep 79; inactivated as OLAA,
Hq ADCOM, 30 Nov 79 (ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79); activated
as OLAA, 1st STRATAD, SAC 30 Sov 79 (SAC SO G-S9, 23 Sov 79).
142-144 (mate-
Rew 98).
5. Msg (S-Decl-3) Dec 86), Hq PACAF to CKCP.AC (quot-
ing Hq (JSAF Msg 02/1S30Z Jan 79), "Spacettack Radar Site,"
2S/2001Z Jan 79.
6. Msg (S-P.evw-8 Feb 87), Hq USAF/XOO to Hq PACAF/XP,
"Spacetrack Radar Site," 14/204S2 Feb 79.
7. Msg (S-Rev»-8 Feb 87), CINCPAC" to PACAF, "Space-
track Radar Site," 01/01502 Mar 79; Msg (S-Decl-31 Dec 85),
PACAF/DEE to Hq ADCOM/DEE, "FY-81 MCP PACBAR," 021230SZ Aug
79.
8. Msg (S-Decl-Upon Site Announcement), Hq USAF/XOO to
Ho PACAF/XP, "USAF/USN Memo of Agreement (MOA) on Siting the
AN/GPS-10" 23/16102 Apr 79; Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/
XO0R, "USAF/USN Memo...," 27/2127ZApr79; Background Paper
(S-Decl-1 Dec 98) on AN/GPS-10 Relocation Project, prep, by
Capt Lenahan XPDS, 25 Jul 79 (Doc 263); Msg (S-Decl-Upon
Notification to the Philippines), CNO to CINCPAC, 07/01042
Sep 79.
9. SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Col ».». Kenty, Asst DCS/
Plans and Progs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Status Report on
PACBAR Eastern and Western Sites," 11 Apr 79 (Doc 264); Ltr
(U), Col B.R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans 5 Progs., ADCOM, to
SAMSO/YN, U.S., U Apr 79; interest Paper (S-Rew-J Dec 98)
on the ALTAIR Radar, prep. by Capt lenahan/XPDSG for Gen
Moore's visit to SAMSO, 31 May 79 (Doc "265); Msg (S-Revw-
Ap 2000), CINCAD to AIG 951, "Commander's Semiannual Summary
1 Oct 79-31 Mar 80," 15/2130Z Apr SO.
10. Hist (S-tem-31 Dec 93) ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 146-147
(material used S-Reira 96); background Paper (U), on GEODSS,
prep, by Capt Katson/XPDS, 17 Apr 79 (Doc' 266) ; Background
Paper (U) on GEODSS, prep, by Capt Watson/XPDS, 1 Jim 79
(Doc 267).
11. Msg (C-GDS-31 Dec 85), Hq USAF/RDSD to Hq AFSC/
SDE/DE/FA, "GEODSS in Korocco and Mideast," 05/19302 Jan 79;
Msg (U), Hq DSAF/RDSD to Hq AFSC/SDE/DE/FA, "GEODSS Budget
Status," 51/1900Z Jan 75; Msg (il), USAF HGN CIVESGCER) At-
lanta GA to Kq USAF/LBEE/LEEP, "FY-81 MCP, GEODSS, Morocco,"
09/18002 Apr 79; L;r (0), Col U.K. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans 5
Programs, ADC0M, to Hq USAF/RDS/XOK/XOX, "Eastern Atlantic
GEODSS Site," 19 Apr 79 (Doc '268).
12. Msg (0), Ho USAF/XOKS/RDSD to Hq AFSC/SDE/DE/EA,
"GEODSS Site Survey Status," 20/1930Z Mar 79 (Doc 269).
13. Msg (O), Hq ESD to Hq ADCOM, "Relocatable GEODSS
Study," 11/13252 Jun 79; Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP to ESD/OCTC,
"GEODSS CAR Submission," 15/20002 Jun 79 (Doc 270).
14. Msg (C-GDS-Declass Upon Completion of Negotiations),
SF.CSTATE to AMEMBASSY Madrid, "GEODSS," 18/13172 Jan 80
(Doc 271)'.
15. Msg (C-Sevw-20 Dec 98), Hq SAC/SX to Hq USAF/PAX
et il, "GEODSS," 28/22S8Z Jan 80.
16.. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p 132 (ma-
terial used H).
17. "The Talk of the Tom" Notes and Comment," TheNew
Yorker , 8 Jan 79, p 23; Report by Robert Bazelle, NBC Night -
ly News, 6:30 p.m., 30 May 79,
18. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p 132 ma-
terial used U).
19. Memo (D) from MLS-9/Larry Edwards, NASA, to MLS-9/
W. D. Goldsby, NASA, "Heavy Skylab Items," 3 Jan 79.
20. Hsg (U), SecDef/PA to Sec AF et si, "Skylab Re-
entry-Press Guidance," 04/03102 May 79.
2). "The Talk of the Tovn" Notes and Comment, The Ken
Yorker, 8 Jan 78, p 23.
22. Ltr (S-Revn-1 Dec 99), Lt Col Michael Waynik, Chief
Systems Division/DOPC, ADCOM, to ADCOM/DOFD, "Skylab Reentry
Support," 20 Feb 79 (material used 0).
23. A collection of news ankles pertaining to Skylab
are included as (Doc 272).
24. Msg (U), HQ NASA to Johnson Space Center et al, in-
fo ADCOM/DOPC, "Skylab Reentry Simulation," 26/19122 Apr 79;
Msg (U), MAD COC/DOFSC to NASA/MIS-9, "Skylab Decay Simu-
lation (Object 5644) Debriefing Comments," 07/15002 May 79;
Msg (II), HQ NASA to Johnson Space Center et al, info HQ
ADCOM/DOPC, "Skylab Reentry Simulation," 15/1204 Z Jun 79.
25. Hsg (U), JCS/J-3 to CINCAD et al. "Skylab Reentry
Intonation," 23/14S02 May 79; Msg (D]7 HQ" USAF/XOD to
ALMAJCOM-SOA, "Skylab Support," 27/20152 Jun 79.
26. Msg (U), HQ N0RAD/D02 to SAMTEC/ROPA, "Skylab Re-
entry Support," 1S/1S3SZ Feb 79.
27. Msg (D), CINCNORAD/CC to OSAF, "NORAD Decay Pre-
dictions for Skylab," 02/23352 Apr 79 (Doc 273]; Msg (II),
NORAD COC/CC to HQ NASA/MLS-9, "Skylab NORAD Satellite Situ-
ation Report (USSR) N'r. 1," 05/15552 Apr 79 (Doc 274); Msg
(li) , HQ .WRAD/J-3 to CISCUNT et al, "Skylab NORAD Satellite
Situation Report (SSSR), 15/17502 Hay 79 (Doc 275).
28. "Skylab Maneuvered Into Men Orbit," Colorado Springs
Sun, 21 Jun 79; Msg (U), NORAD COC/CC to NASA/MLS-9, "Skylab
SORAD- Satellite Situation Report (NSSR), Nr. 13," 22/1920Z
Jun 79.
29. Hist Rpt (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), DCS/Operations, ADCOM,
1 Jul-31 Dec 79, Atch 3, DOP Narrative, pp 1-2 (material used
U); T/Sgt M. Bergman, "Skylab Succumbs," Interceptor Vol 21,
!8, Aug 79, p 7; Msg (U), HQ AFSISC/IIB to' AtG SWO'f," NORAD
Focal Point of Skylab Alert," 13/1710Z Jul 79.
30. "Stargazers Take last look," Colorado Springs Sun,
12 Jul 79, p 1-D.
31 - Interceptor, Vol 21, 18, Aug 79, p 7.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid; "Skylab Falls on Australia," Colorado Springs
Sun, 12 Jul 79.
34. Interceptor, Yd 21, ."8, Aug 79, p 7; Msg (U), NOCC
NASA to Hq NASA/MSL-9, Info ADCOM/DOPC, "Public Release In-
formation No. 19," 12/1358Z Jul 79 (Doc 276).
35. Interceptor , Vol 2!, It, Aug 79, p 7.
36. See newspaper artlclss (Doc "272) .
37. Msg (ifl, NOCC NASA to HQ NORAD/DOPC et si, "Slylab
Reentry Support," 12/2133Z Jul 79; Ltr (0), Gen J. E. Hill,
CINCMORAD, to HQ NORAD/DO, "Congratula'tory Letter from Gen-
eral Allen," 9 Aug 79; Ltrs, Hill to Lt Col T. J. O'Rourke
and Major Thomas J. Cross, n.s., 13 Nov 79.
38. Hist (S-Reire-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 150-133
(material used S-Revw 98).
39. T/Sgt E. G. Lemon, "ADCOM Squadron Chalks Op
Another Successful Launch," The Defense Line, NORAD/ADCOM
Dir of Public Affairs/Information, Vol 7, W. 10, Jul 79;
Ltr, Gen. J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to Col J. F. Fowler, Com-
mander, 10th AERODS, n.s., 18 Jun 79.
40. Hist (S-Revv-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p ISO
(material used U); Talking Paper (S-Decl-31 Dec 2005) on 10th
AERODS-ADCOM Space Launch Advocacy Focal Point," Lt Col Cable
XPDQ, 26 Apr 78 (Doc 277); SSS (S-Revw 21 Sep 98), Col J. If.
Yocua, Actg Asst DCS for Space Operations, to N/DO (info),
"NORAD Space Defense Relationships," circa 21 Sep 78 (Doc 278).
41. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p 153
(material used U).
42. Ltr {(J), It Gen R. C. Henry, Commander SANSO, to
Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD, n.s., 16 Jan 79 (Doc 279); SSS (U),
Maj Gen B. L Brown to A/CC et al, "Reply to SAMSO/CC Ltr,
16 Jan 79," 6 Feb 79 (Doc 23UJ; Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill,
CINCAD, to tt Gen R. C. Henry, Commander SAMSO, n.s., 12 Mar
79 (Doc 281).
45. Msg (U), SAMS0/LV to Hq ADC0M/D02, "Revision of
DMSP Memorandum of Agreement, " 02/20022 Apr 79; Atch, "D02S
Narrative," to ICS/Operations Staff Agency Historical Report,
1 Jan 79-30 Jun 79.
44. Msg (0), Hq ADCOM/BC to SAMSO/CC and 10 AERODS/CC,
"ADCOM SSP/DMSP Launch Support," 26/15S5SZ Apr 79 (Doc 282),
45. SSS (II), Major Krasinski, XPDSD to A/XP, "Revised
Program, Management Directive for Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program," 2 May 79 (Doc 283).
46. Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDS!., "Program
Management Directive for Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program," 03/2004Z May 79 (Doc 284).
47. Msg (tl), Hq USAF/RDS to ADCOM, "Switch of DM5? to
ATLAS E/f Launch Vehicle," 10/17002 Jul 79.
48. Interest Paper (U) on Issues Relating to the USAF
Space Support Program, Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro-
gram and the Tenth Aerospace Defense Squadron (10 AERODS),
prepared by Caot J. M. Mullen, A/D02S, 6 Jul 79 (Doc 285);
Interest Paper" (U) on Switch of DMSP from Thor to ATLAS E/F
Launch Vehicle, prepared by Capt J. M. jullen, A/D025, 15
Aug 79 (Doc 286); SSS (II), Brig Cen K. E. Lindeman, DCS/
Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Switch of Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) from Thor to ATLAS,"
15 Aug 79 (Doc 287); Msg (S-DecM Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/CC to
Hq USAF/RDS, "Military Space Launch Capability," 17/21102
Aug 79 (Doc 28S).
49. ADCOM SO G-206, 23 Oct 79; Lt'r (U), Cen J. E. Hill,
CIttCAD, to Col J. F. Fowler, Commander 10th AERODS, n.s.,
2; Oct 79 (Doc 289).
50. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. Lindenan, DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al_, "Briefing - Transition of
DMSP Satellites from Thor to ATLAS Boosters," 27 Nov 79
(Doc 290).
51- Ltr(0), Gen J. E. Hill, CIKCAD, to Gen A. D. Slay,
Commander, AFSC, 'n.s., 5 Dec 79 (Doc 291).
52. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and
Programs, A0C0M, to A/CC, "USAF Site Survey 78-21 . . .," 2
53. SSS (S-Decl-29 Jan 91), Brig Gen If, E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM to A/CC, "tISAF Site Survey 78-
21," 29 Jan 79; Msg (S-Decl-29 Jan 91), Hq ADCOM/XPD to
AFSC/CC, "ADCOM Addendum to USAF Site Survey 78-21," circa
6 Feb 79 (Doc 292).
54. Msg (C-Decl-1 Dec 85), Hq USAF/RDS to Hq AFSC/SD/
TE/DE, "Satellite Control Capabilities," 07/I41SZ Jun 79;
Msg (C-Decl-1 Dec 85), Hq AFSC/TE/SD/DE to SAMSO/CV/CX/YE/
LV/DE, "Satellite ODerations Center (STC II)," 07/211SZ Jun
79; SSS (0), Col 1, I. Churchill, Actg DCS/Plans and Pro-
grams, ADCOM, to A/CC, "STC II/SOC/GPS SCC Siting Criteria,"
19 Jun 79 (Doc 293); Msg (C-Decl-31 Dec 85), SAMSO/CX to Hq
AFSC/TEV/SDS/DEP, "Satellite Control Capabilities," 19/01402
Jun 79; Background Paper on Consolidated Satellite Opera-
tions Center (U), prepared by Maj deJonckheer, XP, n.d.,
circa 2 Jul 79 (Doc 294).
55. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. LinSeman, DCS/Plans and
Prograjis, ADCOM, to A/DO et si, "SAMSO Briefing on Consoli-
dated Space Operations Center," 2 Jul 79, with 1 etch: CSOC
Briefing presented at Hq AFSC 25-26 Jun 79 (Doc 29S).
56. Background Paper on Consolidated Space Operations
Center (CSOC), (11), prepared by Lt Co! Beamer/XPDSD, 25 Jul
79; Msg (0), TAC/CV to AFSC/CV, "Consolidated Space Opera-
tions Center," 25/01002 Jul 79.
57. Msg (B), Hq USAF/XO to AFSC/CV/SD/TE et al, "Con-
Band Participation in Developing a Space Mission Operations
Concept," 29/17302 Jun 79; SSS (U), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeuan,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Consolidated Space
Operations Center (CSOC)," 13 Jul 79 (Doc 295).
58. Background Paper on Consolidated Space Operations
Center (CSOC), (U), prepared by Lt Col S. Beamer/XPDSD, 25
Jul 79.. Col Beamer was the ADCOM representative on the group
which wrote the concept of operations.
59. SSS (U), Col L. L, Churchill, Actg DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "STC II/SOC/GPS NCC, Siting Cri-
teria," 19 Jun 79 (Doc 293); Msg (U) , CINCAD/W to AFSC/CV,
"Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC)," 09/18402 Jul
79 (Doc 297); Msg (0), CINCAD/CC to CSAF/CF, "Consolidated
Space Operations Center," 09/2045Z Jul 79 (Doc 798).
60. Msg (U), Hq USAF/PAX to Hq AFSC/CV/TE/SD/DE, "CSOC
Site Survey," 23/19402 Aug 79 (Doc 299); Msg (U) Hq ADCOH/XP
to Hq USAF/PAX, "CSOC Site Survey," 30/1330Z Aug 79 (Doc
300); SSS (U), Col H. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs,
ADCOH, to A/CC, "CSOC Site Surrey," 14 Sep 79 (Doc 31)1).
61. Hsg (C-GDS-26 Sep 85), CSAP/CV to CIEAO, "Conso-
lidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) Site Selection," 28/
20S52 Sep 79 (Doc 302).
62. Ltr (S-Decl-2 Oct 99), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD, to
Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 4 Oct 79 (Doc 503).
63. Hsg (U), OSAF/PAM to Hq AFSC/PA et al, "CSOC/NORAD
Public Announcement," 20/20001 Dec 79 (DoclOTT.
64. Ibid.
65. "Springs Area is the Logical USAF Space Command
Site," Colorado Springs Sun, 18 Oct 79, p 29; Sandra Dillard,
"Kramer Announces Springs~!fill Be Site of Space Center,"
Denver Post , 2 Mov 79, p 3; Denise Gamlno, "Kramer: City to
Get Space Center," Colorado Springs Sun, 2 Nov 79, p 1;
Michael D. Green, "Space Center: 2,550" Jobs Predicted,"
Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph , 2 Nov 79, p 1; Michael
D. Green, "Air Force Confirms Space Center Reports," Colorado
Springs Gazette Telegraph , 21 Dec 79, pp 1-2; Colorado Springs
Gazette Telegraph , 50 Tjec 79, p B-l.
66. Brochure (S-Decl-31 Sec 2000), "Required Operation-
al Capability for Space Defense Operations Center (ADCOH ROC
5-76), 15 Oct 76 (Doc 143, Hist of ADCOM, 1976),
67. Briefing (5-Decl-l Dec 98), "SPADOC Implesentation
Plan," prepared by ADCOM/XP, n.s., Atch to Ltr (U), Maj Gen
R. W. Fye, CofS, ADCOH, to All DCSs and Chiefs of Special
Staff Elements, "Implementation of SPADOC Phase One," 9 May
79 (Doc 30S); SSS (S-DecI-1 Dec 98), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Status of
SPADCCS/SPADOC," 31 Jan 79 (Doc 306); SSS T5-Decl-1 Dec 98),
Col I*. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOH, to A/CC,
"Status of SPADCCS/SPADOC," 23 Feb 79 (Doc 307).
68. Memo (S-Decl-31 Jan 96), Dr. G. P. Dinneen, Asst
SecDef (C3I), for SecAF and CJCS, "Space Defense Operations
Center," 1 Mar 79, with 1 Atch "SPADOC Responsibilities"
(Doc 308).
69. Msg (S-Decl-8 Mar 85). Hq USAF/XO to ADCOM/XP,
"Plan for Establishing SPADOC," 12/17O0Z Mar 79.
70. SSS (S-Decl-31 Jan 96), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeman,
DCS/ Plans and Programs, ADCOH, to A/CC et al, "Approval of
(■'car Term SPADOC Implementation Plan, 15 MaT 79; SSS (S-Decl-
1 Dec 98), It Col W. H. Ague, Exec Off, DCS/Plans and Pro-
grams, ADCOH, to A/CC et al, "Status of SPADCCS/SPABOC," 28
Mar 79; SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec~9"8), Lt Col W. N. Ague, Exec Off,
DCS/Plans and Prograis, ADCOH, "Approval of SPADOC Imple-
mentation Plan," S Apr 79 (Doc 309).
71. Hist Report (S-Ded-31 Dec 2000), DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADC0.M, Jan-Jun 79.
72. Plan (S-Rew-1 Dec 98), "Phase I SPADOC Activation
Plan," Atch to Ltr (U), Haj Gen R. H. Fye, CofS, ADCOM, to
DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements, same subject, 16
Jul 79 (Doc 310) .
75. Briefing (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), "SPADOC Implementation
Plan," prepared by ADCOH/XP, n.d., Atch to Ltr (U), Maj Gen
R. IV. Fye, CofS, ADCOM, to DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff
Elements, "Implementation of SPADOC Phase One," 9 May 79
(Doc 305); Msg (S-Rew-6 Sen 99), CIMORAD CS to Hq USAF/
RD/XO et al, "NORAD Combat Operations Center (NCOC) Trans-
ition to NDRAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex Improvements Program
(427M)," 10/20052 Sen 79; Msg (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Hq DSAF/DO
to Hq SAC/XP/DO et ai, "SPADOC Activation Announcement," 28/
2300Z Sep 79; Hist Report (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), DCS/Operations,
ADCOM, Jul-Dec 79.
), DCS/Ope-.-ations, AD-
75. Ltr (S-Revw-6 Feb 99), Brig Gen H. E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to Hq BSAF/XO. "Identification
of Interfacing Agencies," 13 Jul 79 (Doc ill); SSS (S-Revw-
1 Dec 98), Col If. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Prograis,
ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "SPADOC Team Visit to Wash DC Area,"
26 Sep 79 (Doc 312); Msg (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to
Hq USAF/RDS, "PMD Direction for SPADOC Interfaces," 19/1630Z
Dec 79 (Doc 313),
76. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCUM, 1977-78, op 153-154
(material used S-Revw-98); Hist (S-Rew-1 Dec 2000) CONAD,
1970, p 99; Hist (S-FRD) COWD/ADC, FY 75, pp 104-105;
Commander's Foreword (S-FRD), to. Aerospace Defense Command
Objectives Plan, 1979-1993, May 78; Talking Paper (S-Revw-
31 Dec 99) on ASAT System Development, prepared by Maj R. J.
Vercruyse (XPDS), 29 Feb 80 (D c 314).
77. SSS (S-Revtr-IB Jan 99), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman,
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al_, "Space Defense
Systems Programs Status," 2 Apr 79, with"~2 atchs, SSS (S-
Decl-1 Dec 98), "Space Defense System Program Status," 21
Mar 79, and Memo (S-Revw-18 Jan 99) for Secretaries of the
Military Departments et al_, "U.S. Anti-Satellite Requirements
Analysis, Phase II," Ada D. J. Murphy, USN (Ret.), Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense (Policy), 25 Jan 79, with atch,
"Terms of Reference" (Doc 31S). .
78. SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Col It R. Kenty, Asst DCS/
Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Space Defense
Program Status," 19 Jan 79 (Doc 316). Similar status reports
data 1 Mar 79, 21 Mar 79, 20 Apr 79, 16 May 79, 20 Jun 79 and
30 Jul 79 are included as {Docs 317 thru 322); SSS (S-Decl-
11 Jan 98), Brig Gen W. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs,
ADCOM, to A/CC, "Executive Summary-High Energy laser Techno-
logy Applications Study," 12 Jan 79'(Doc 323); Background
Paper (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), on the "USAF Antisatellite (ASAT)
Program," 6 Aug 79 (Doc 324); SSS (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Col »'.
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al,
"Laser Weapons for Space Defense," 26 Sep 79, with 1 atch,
"Talking Paper (S-Revw-1 Dec 98) on Ground Based Laser ASAT
Program" with 2 atchs, Memo for the Undersecretary of De-
fense for Research and Engineering (S-Revw-27 Mar 99), James
E. Williams, Actg Asst SecAF (Research, Development and Log-
istics), "DOD High Energy Laser (HEL) Program," 23 Apr 79,
and Memo for the Assistant SecAF (Research, Development and
Logistics) (S-Revw-7 May 89), from 11. J. Perry, Undersecre-
tary of Defense for Research and Engineering, "Air Force
Medium Range Applied Technology (MRAT) Program," 29 May 79
(Doc 325).
79. Msg (S-Revw-31 Dec 99), CINCAO to AIG 951, "Com-
mander's Semiannual Summary, 1 Apr-30 Sep 79, 16/01052 Oct
79 (Hist File 22); SS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Col If. R. Kenty,
Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Air Launch
Miniature System Operational Concept," 8 Feb 79 (Doc 326);
SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, "Space Defense System Program Status," 1 Mar
79; ADCOM/XP Historical Report (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Jul-Dec 79.
80. Msg (S-Revw-31 Dec 98), Hq (ISAF/SDS to Hq AFSC/SD,
"Space Defense System Program Limited Operational Capabili-
ty (LOC) ," 05/21Z5Z Mar 79; Msg (S-Decl-31 Dec 98), Hq SAMSO/
VN to Hq ADCOM/XP, 'Prototype Miniature Air-launched Segment
(PMALS) Limited Operational Capability (LOC)," 17/0030Z Mar
79; Msg (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to Bq SAMSO/YN,
"... (PMALS) United Operational Capability (LOC)," 4 Apr
79 (Doc 327); Msg (S-Ded-31 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XPD to SAMSO/
YNA, "... (PMALS) Limited Operational Capability," 18 Apr
79 (Doc 328); Msg (S-Decl-30 Apr 98), Bq AFSC/SD to Hq DSAF/
RDS, "Space Defense System Program. . . (LOC)," 04/113SZ May
79 (Doc 329); Msg (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOH/XP to JCS/J-3/
J-S, Hq SAMSO/YN, "Space Defense Systei Program . . . (LOC),"
25 May 29 (Doc 330); Msg (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to
SAMSO/YN, "Space Defense Program User Concerns," 25 May 79
(Doc 331); SSS (U), Col W. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM to A/CV, "Space Systems Orientation Visit,
30-31 Jul 79," 25 Jul 79, with 1 atch, "Interest Paper (S-
Revw-1 Dec 98), on the Prototype Mission Operations Center,"
prepared by Maj Vercruyse (XPDSD), 25 Jul 79 (Doc 332).
81, SSS (li), Brig Gen W. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Background Paper on ASAT Require-
ments Briefing," 30 Oct 79, with 1 atch, "Background Paper
(S-Revw-29 Oct 99), on ASAT Requirements Study," prepared by
Maj Vercruyse (XPDS) , 29 Oct 79 (Doc 333) .
82. Ltr (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Gen J. I. Hill, CINCAD, to
Ada D. J. Murphy, USN (Ret.), DUSD (Policy), n.s., 4 Dec 79
(Doc 334). The scope of CINCAD's role, responsibility, and
authority with regard to satellite survivability and space
defense had been examined within the ADCOM staff during late
1978 and early 1979, and an intrepretation was provided to
the staff by Gen Hill on 11 June 1979 for, use in planning.
See SSS (U), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs,
ADCOM to A/DO et al, "Interpretation of ADCOM Mission," 13
Oct 78, with 1 atch, "Position Paper (S-Ded-31 Dec 2000),
on ADCOM Responsibility for Space Defense," n.d. (Doc 335);
Ltr (0), Maj Gen B. L Brown, DCs/Operations , ADCOM, to
ADCOM/XP, "Interpretation of ADCOM Mission," 9 Nov 78, with
1 atch'(U), "DO Rewrite of Position Paper on ADCOM Responsi-
bility for Space Defense," n.d. (Doc 336); Ltr (U), Gen J.
E. Hill, CINCAD, to ADC0M/D0/IN/KR/XP/LG, "Interpretation of
CISCAD Responsibility and Authority in the Area of Satellite
Survivability," 11 Jun 79 (Doc 337).
CHAPTER IV - AIR DEFENSE
1. Booklet (S-Rew-00), NORAD Forces and Program Change
Summary ,(tt), 1 Jan 80; Hist of ADCOM, i Jan 77-31 Dec 78, p
40),
2. ACCOM Special Order G-16, 1 Feb 79; ADCOH SO G-24,
13 Feb 79; ADCOH SO C-34, 6 Mar 79; ADCOM SO G-60, 23 Apr
79; ADCOM SO G-71, 10 May 79; ADCOM SO G-87, 5 Jim 79; ADCOM
SO G-88, S Jun 79; ADCOM SO G-97, 7 Jun 79; ADCOM SO G-9S,
7 Jun 79; ADCOM SO G-I13, 11 Jul 78; ADCOM $0 G- 173, 24 Sep
79; ADCOM SO G-181, 28 Sep 79; ADCOM SO G-201, 21 Dec 78;
ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79.
3. ADCOM Special Order G-16, 1 Feb 79; ADCOM SO G-34,
6 Mar 79; ADCOM SO G-87, S Jun 79, ADCOM SO G-88, 5 Jun 79;
ADCOM SO G-94, 7 Jun 79; ADCOM SO (f-113, 11 Jul 78; ADCOM SO
G-133, 18 Jul 79; ADCOM SO G-144, 18 Sep 78; ADCOM SO G-174,
31 Oct 78; ADCOM SO G-I83, 14 Nov 78; ADCOM SO G-201, 21 Dec
78.
4. Hist (S-Rew-07) (material used U), ADCOM, Jan 77-
Dec 78, p 44.
, Policy, Programs and
led S-Oecl-97), ADCOM,
7. Interest Paper (U), ADCOM DCS/Ope rat ions, "Summary
of 25NR JSS Transition Actions," 3 Jan 7 9 (Doc 35~8); Hist Rnrt
(S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS Plans and Programs,
Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 25.16); feus release (0),
"JSS Implementation is Continuing on Schedule," The Defense
tine; Jun 79^ N0RAD/A0COM Dir of Public Affairs, Vol 7 "lib -
"T"0To'c" 397.
8. Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) (material used U) , ADCOM DCS/
Plans and Programs, Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 25.16).
9. Memo (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs to DCS/
logistics, "JSS Conversion Probln, - 21st Air Division,"
16 Jul 79 (Dor 54077
10. Interest Paper (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs,
"24 Air Div JSS Transition," 8 Jan 79 ([) oc 541); ADCOM
PAD 79-1 (U), "Inactivation 780 RAPS, Fortuna AFS, B,"
12 Mar 79 (Doc 342); M1COMPAD79-S (U), "Activation Oi,AE and
Inactivation 785 RADS, Finlcy AFS, K0," 6 Apr 79 ([) oc 3 -t 3 > ■
ADCOM PAD 79- Z (U), "Inactivation 778 DADS, Harve AFS, NO," 2
Mar 79 (Doc 344); ADCOM PAD '9-3 (U), "Inactivation 786 RADS,
Minot AFS, ND," 16 Mar 79 (Doc 345); ADCOM PAD 79-4 (U) , "In-
activation 779 RADS, Ophein AFS, MT," 21 Mar 79 (Doc 346).
11. Msg (U), ADCOM to 23AD, 1115152 May 79 (Doc 347);
Talking Paper (D), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs, "23AD Sensor
Site Transition to JSS," 11 Sep 79 (Doc 348); ADCOM PAD 79-11
(U). "Inactivation 692 RADS, Baudette AFS, MN," 18 Jun 79 (Doc
349); Msg (II), CINCAD to 23AD, 0613152 Jul 79 (Doc 350); ADCOM
PAD 79-12 (II), "Inactivation 753 RADS, Sault Sainte Marie AFS,
MI," 22 Jun 79 (Doc 351); ADCOM PAD 79-13 (D), "Inactivation
665 RADS, Calumet AFS, MI," 2 Jul 79{Doc 352); ADCOM PAD 79-
17 (0) , "Activation Operating Location AC, 23ADS, Nashvauk
City, MN," 28 Aug 79 (Doc 353).
12. Interest Paper (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans, Policy, Pro-
grams, and Requirements, "JSS Actions Pertaining to 26AD,"
i Oct 79 (Doc 354).
13. Msg (U), 20NR to ADCOM, 202000Z Jul "9 (Doc 355);
Ltt (U), ADCOM DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and Programs,
"Dauphin Island, AC, Height Finder (HF) Radar andUHF Radios."
30 Jul 79 (Doc 356); Ltr (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs
to DCS/Logi5tks, "Dauphin Island Contract Maintenance," 1
Aug 79 (Doc 357); Msg (U), ADCOM to 20NR, 2415002 Aug 79 (Doc
358): Msg (U), Defense Fuel Rgn to ADC, et al . , 1914002 Sep
79 (Doc 359); Msg (D), ADCOM to 3246 Test Kg, 202230Z Sep 79
(Doc 360); Msg (»), 2DNR to ADCOM, 2014102 Sep 79 (Doc 361);
Msg (D), CINCNORAD to 20 NR, 271800Z Sep 79 (Doc 362); Msg
(U), 20NR to ADTAC, 3019302 Nov 79 (Doc 363).
14. Hist (S-Revw-00) (material used U), ADCOM, Jan 77-
Dec 78, pp 47-48,
15. Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/
Plans, Policy, Programs, and Requirements, Jul-Dec 79 (Of-
fice of Hist, file 25.16); Msg (U), OSAF to ALHAJCOM, 2818301
Mar 79 (Doc 364) .
16. Ibid.
17. Hist Rpt (S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/
Plans and Programs, Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 25,16).
18. Ibid.; Hist (S-Revw-00) (material used D), ADCOM,
Jan 77-Dec"737 pp 47-48.
19. Msg (S-Revk-99) (material used U), CINCAD to sub-
units, 151905 Oct 79 (Doc 365); Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) ("ate-
used II), ADCOM DCS/Plans, Policy, Programs and Require-
s, Jul-Dec '9 (Office of Hist, file 25.16),
20. Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/,
Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 2S.16).
21. Hist (S-Revw-00), ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 51.
22. Hist Rprt (5-Decl-OO) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/
Plans, Policy, Programs, and Requirements, Jul-Dec 79 (Office
of Hist, file 25.16); Journal (S-Revw-00) of Discussions and
Decisions, Canada-U.S., 153rd PJBD Meeting held at Royal
Reads Military College, British Columbia, 12-15 Jun 79, pp
11-12; Journal (S-Revn-00) of Discussions and Decisions,
Canada-U.S., 154th PJBD Meeting held at Canadian Forces Base
North Bay, Canada, 10-12 Oct 79, p 19.
23. Ltr (U), NORAD DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and Pro-
grams, "Relocation of ROCCs," 28 Feb 79 (Doc 366); Talking
Paper (U), DCS/Plans and Programs, ACCOM "SK Region Operations
Control Center (ROCC)," 16 Apr 79 (Doc 367); Ltr (U), NORAD
DCS/Plans and Programs to DCS/Operations, "Relocation of
ROCCs," 2 Mar 79 (Doc 368).
24. Ltr (U), SORAD DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans, Policy,
Programs, and Requirements, "JSS/ROCC Site Designators," 5
Dec 79 (Doc 569); Ltr (U), ADCOM DCS/Operations to ADCOM Rgns,
"Joint Surveillance System (JSS) Site Designators," 28 Mar
79 (Doc 370).
25. Hist (S-Revw-00) of ADCOM, Jah 77-Dec 78, p 56.
26. Msg (U), AFTEC to (JSAF, info ADCOM, 1821517. Jan 79
(Doc 371); Msg (U), AFTEC to UStf, info ADCOM, 0221322 Feb 79
(Doc 372); Msg (U), AFTEC to ADCOM, 0720302 May 79 (Doc 373);
Msg (U), ADCOM to ESD, 09205II May 79 (Doc 374); Msg (D), ESD
to AF'fEC, info ADCOM, 211915Z May 79 (Doc 375); Msg (U), AFTEC
to USAF, info ADCOM, 062040Z Jul 79 (Doc 576); Msg (U), ESD to
ADCOM, 0618002 Aug 79 (Doc 577); Msg (S-Rcvw-99), CMCAD to
ADCOM sub-units, 1519052 Oct 79 (Doc 365); Talking Paper (S-
Decl-85), ADCOM DCS/Plans, Policy, Programs 6 Requirements,
"CONUS Over-the-Horkon Backscat'ter (OTH-B) Radar System (Ul,"
15 Mar 79 (Doc 378).
2?. Msg (S-Revw-87), OSAf to AFSC, info ADCOM, 2013453
Sep 79 (Doc 379); Msg (II), ESO to AFSC, info ADCOM, 031900Z
Oct 75 (Doc 380); Msg (U) , AFTEC to ESD, info ADCOM, 1216323
Oct 79 (Doc 35i); Msg (S-Decl-87), USAF to AFSC, info ADCOM,
0S1S502 Dec 79 (Doc 382).
28. Msg (S-Revw-99), CINCAD to ADCOH sub-units, 15190SZ
Oct 79 (see Doc 365).
29. Journal of Discussions and Decisions (S-Revw-CO),
153rd Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD), Canada-U.S.,
Royal Roads Military College, British Columbia, 12-15 Jun
79, p 15 (Office of Hist, file 24.3).
30. Ltr (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs to DCS/Comp-
troller, "Seek Skyhook 05(1 Funding," 22 Jan 79 (Doc 383); Ltr
(U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs to Det 1, 5AWTEC/TOEP, "AN/
FYQ-47 Maintenance Manning for Cudjoe Key AFS, FL, 24 Jan 79
(Doc 384); Talking Paper (U), SEEK SKYHOOK, IS Mar 79 (Doc
385); Ltr (S-Revw-99), ADCOM/DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and
Programs, "SEEK SKYHOOK Operational Need/Utility IV)," 27 Jul
79 (Doc 386); Msg (U), ADCOM to JCS, 132300Z Nov 79 (Doc 387);
Msg (C-Revu-85), 20NR to ADCOH, 141930Z Dec 79 (Doc 388): Msg
(U), ADCOM to JCS, 21172DZ Dec 79 (Doc'38S); Hist Rprt (S-
Decl-00), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs, Jsn-Jun 79 (Office
of Hist file 25.16).
31. Msg (S-Sem-98), USAF to ADCOM et al, 202030Z Jill
79 (Doc 390).
32. ADCOM Objectives Plan (S-FRD) (material used S-
Deci-00), 1983-1990, pp 75-77.
33. Journal (S-Rero-00), Discussions and Decisions,
Canada-O.S., for the lS5rd PJBD Mtg, Royal Roads Military
College, British Columbia, 12-15 Jun 79; Ltr (S-Revw-99),
ADCOM DCS/OperatiOftS to Combat Onsrations Center, "Comman-
der's Semiannual Summary (SITREP)," 30 Mar 79 (Doc 391); Hist
Rprt (S-Decl-00), DCS/Plans, Policy, Progrons, and Require-
ments, Jul-Dec 79 (Office of Hist, file 25.16).
54. Msg (S-Revw-99) (material used 0), CINCAD to sub-
units, 1S1905Z Oct 79 (Doc 365); Msg (U) , NORAD to SDKQ,
1918302 Nov 79 (Doc 392),
35. Ltr (D), NORAD DCS/Communications, Electronics, and
Computer Resources (J-6) to DCS/Operations, et a^, "NORAD/
ADCOM E-3A Communications Plan," 25 Apr 79 (Doc 393).
36. Hist (S-Revs-Ou), ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p S3; Ltr
(U), NORAD DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and Programs, "State-
ment of Operational Seed (SON) for NORAD/ADCOM E-3A Battle
Staff Enhancements," 27 Apr 79 (Doc 394).
37. Msg (S-Revw-93), ZSNR to CINCN0RA3, 3019152 Apr 79
(Doc 395).
58. Ltr (0), Gen Hill, CINCNORAD, to Gen Creech, Coidr
of TAC (no subj), 30 Apr 79 (Doc 396).
39. Opnl Eval Rprt (S-Revw-96), 25th NORAD Rgn (AMALGAM
MUTE 79-6), 19-29 Aug 79 (Doc 397).
40. Statement of Operational Meed for NORAD/ADCOM E-3A
Battle Staff Enhancements, 18 Oct 79 (Doc 398); Msg (U),
NORAD to TAC, 061600Z Jul 79 (Doc 399).
42. Ltr (S-Revw-91), ADC to All ADCOM Rgns, et a}_,
"What's Going On (U)," 11 Sep 79 (Doc 400).
43. Journal (S-Revw-00) of Discussions and Decisions,
Canada-U.S., 154th PJBD Meeting herd at Canadian Forces Base
North Bay, Ontario, 10-12 Oct 79.
44. Kist Rprts (S-Decl-00), NORAD DCS/PUns, Policy,
Programs, and Requirements, Jan-Jun 79, and Jul-Dec 79 (Of-
fice of Hist, file 25.16).
43. Msg (S-Deci-4 Jan 85), CISCAD to JCS, "17th DSES
Deactivation," 091930! Jan 79 (Doc 401); Msg (S-Decl-19 Jan
85), JCS to CWCAD, "17th DSES Deactivation," 252039Z Jan 79
(Doc 402); Interest Paper (S-Decl-54), ADCOM DCS/Operations,
"Deactivation of 17th DSES," 11 Jan 79 (Doc 403); Interest
Pacer (S-Decl on Act), ADCOM DCS/Plans. 8 Programs, "17 DSES,
Malmstroa AFB, MT (U)," 8 Jan 79 (Doc 404).
46. Msg (C-Decl-85), USAF to ADCOM, "EB-S7 Programming
and Training Requirements (U)," 0619502 Feb 79 (Doc 405).
.47. Msg (U), CINCAD to USAF, "Electronic Countermea-
sures Training for Interceptor Aircrews," 011S30Z May 79 (Doc
406).'
48. Msg (S-Revw-15 May SS), ADCOM to USAF, "EB-S7 Task-
ing (0)," 2522202 May 79 (Doc 407); Interest Paper {S-Decl-
85), ADCOM DCS/Operations, "EB-57 OPLAN 4409 (U)," 27 Apr 79
(Doc 408).
49. Msg (U), ADCOM to USAF, "Request for 1SS DSEG Ac-
tive Duty Augmentation," 202000Z Jun 79 (Doc 409); Msg (U),
ADCOM to Z4AD, "Inactivation of 17DSES," 12 Sep 79 (Doc 410);
Hq ADCOM SO G-133 (U), 18 Jul 79 (Doc 411); ADCOM PAD 79-7
(U), "Inactivation 17DSES, Malmstroa! AFB, MT," 25 May 79
(Doc 412); Msg (C-Decl-85), USAF to ADCOM, "Early Closure of
the 17 Defensive System Evaluation Sq (DSES) (U)," 162000Z
Apr 79 (Hoc 413); Msg (0), CINCAD to USAF. "Permanent Dis-
play of EB-57 Aircraft," 2623102 Apr 79 (Doc 414).
50. Hist (U), The Air Defense of the United States,
Hq ADC, Jun 51, p 21S; ADCOM SO-20S (U), 19 Oct 79 (see
Spt. Docs to this history.).
51. Plan (S-Revw-99), North American Aerospace Defense
Objectives Plan 1982-1989 (U), Jul 79, o SS (ADM! Hist
file 24).
52; Hist (S-Sevw-00), ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 69.
53. Hist Rprt (U), Directorate of Air Defense Opera-
tions, DCS/Operations, ADCOM, Jan-Jun 79 (ADCOM Hist file
25.4).
S3. Msg (S-Decl-20 Dec 83), NORAD to AMCC, et at,
"NORAD force Summary As Of 20 Dec 79 (U)," 201620Oec 79
(Doc 415}.
56. NORAD Reg 55-3 (S-Revu-98), "CIKNORAD/CINCAD
Weapons Readiness States and Readiness Postures (If)," 16 Oct
78 (see Doc 55 to Hist of NORAD, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 197.
57. ADC Movement Order MO-1 (U), 1 Nov 78 (Doc 416).
58. Hist (S-Decl-98) of ADCOM, Jan-Dec 76, pp 44-45;
Hist Rprts (S-Decl-00) OCS/Plans, Policy, Programs, and
Requirements, Jan-Jun 79, Jul -Dec 79 (Office of Hist, file
25.16).
59. Msg (S-Decl-84), HO DA to CINCAD, et al, "Army
CONUS and Alaska Defense (U)," 0420152 Jan 79 (Toe 417).
60. Memo (S-Decl-86), ADCOM DCS/Operations to CINCAD,
et al, "CONUS/Alaska Air Defense (IJ)," 18 Jan 79 (Doc 418);
Msg (S-Decl-86) , USAF to ADCOM, "Removal of ADA (U),"
2718152 Jan 79 (Doc 419); Msg (S-Decl-31 Dec 86), AAC to
NORAD, "Removal of ADA (U)," 2805001 Jan 79 (Doc 420); Msg
(S-0ecl-86), ADCOM to USAF, "Removal of ADA (U)," 2900502
Jan 79 (Doc 421); Staff Summary Sheet (S-Decl on PA) ".NORAD
DCS/Operations to CINCNORAD, "Removal of ADA (D)," 1 Feb 79
(Doc 422); Discussion Paper (U), NORAD DCS/Operations, "Amy
CONUS and Alaska Air Defense," (Doc 423); Talking Paper (5-
Decl-87), NORAD DCS/Operations, "ADA Loss in Florida (0),"
13 Mar 79 (Doc 424); Memo (S-Decl-99), CJCS to SecDef, "Army
CONUS and Alaska Air Defense (U)," 13 Feb 79 (Doc 42S).
61. Memo (S-Decl-85) for Chairman of the JCS from Sec-
Def, "Army CONUS and Alaska Air Defense (U)," 28 Mar 79 (Doc
(Doc 426).
62. Msg (S-Decl-81), HQ DA to CDRTRADOC, info ADCOM,
"Any CONUS 5 Alaska Air Defense (U)," 022151Z Apr 79 (Doc
427); Msg (U), JCS to CINCNORAD, et al, "Army CONUS/Alaska
ADA (U)," 061S42Z Apr 79 (Doc 428); Msg (U-FOUO), CDR FORSCOM
to ADCOM, "Any CONUS/Alaska ADA (U)," 0920I2Z Apr 79 (Doc
429); Msg (U), CDR USAMILPERCEN to DA, et al, "Personnel on
Orders to the 31st ADA BDE, Homestead AFB, FL and the 1-43
ADA BS, AS 111000Z Apr 79 (Doc 430) ■ Msg (U), CINCNORAD to
31st ADA, et al, "Army CONUS/Alasla ADA," 1521S7: Apr 79
(Doc 431).
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
LINEAGE AND HONORS DATA
: Hait Designation : .AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (ADCOH) -
(Major Command)
Previous Designation : Same. (See Hist of ADCOM, 1 Jan '7 -
31 Dec 78, p 225.)
Authority: DAF ltr 322 (AFOMO 797F), 10 Nov SO, -subj;
Designation of Tactical Air Comsiand and Air Defense Command a
Major Commands, Reassignment, Establishment, Discontinuance,
i of Certain Other Units and Establishments.
Higher Hq : HQ OSAF .'. ■;■ '•■
Commander -in 'Chief : General James E. Hill '. ' .
t . :... .,<•;. ■ 6 Dec 77 - 31 Dec 79. '■,
It Gen James V. Hartinger
1 Jan 80 -
(SO AA-2179, 20 Dec 79,
HQ USAP, Wash, DC)
Vice Commander in Chief : Maj Gen William C. Burrows
: : 19 Aug 77 - 31 Jan 79
Haj Gen Bruce K. Brown
s^^jr**^. ..^.w^-v; ■*-~'i"pgb 7g<**£2*Fe6*y9^ ****"-'
■(ADCOM SO G-14.,. 25 Jan 79)
Maj Gen Warren- C. Moore
■ 12 Feb 79 -
■ (50AA-2145, .19 Dec 78,
HQ OSAF, Wash DC
Assigned Units:
4799th OSAF Special Activities Squadron, Colorado Springs,
CO
ADCOM Combat Operations Center, Cheyenne Mountain Complex,
CO
■ Units; Reassigned to Hq ADCOM from 1 Oct to' 1 Dec 79 Cue to '
Reorganization:
'Classified CONF by 4961 Security Classification Guide, 1 Jun 79,
Declassify on 1 Dec 98.
2nd Communications Squadron, Buckley Field, CO {per ACCOM
SO G-182, 28 Sep 79),
5th Defense Space Communications Squadron, Woomera Aprt,
Australia (per ADCOM SO G-182, 28 Sep 79).
6th Missile Warning Squadron, Otis AFB, MA (per ADCOM SO
G-18Z, 28 Sep 79).
. 7th Missile Warning Squadron-, Beale AFB, CA (per ADCOM SO
G-182, 28 Sep 79). •
12th Missile Warning Squadron, Thule AB, Greenland (per
ADCOM SO G-182, 28 Sep 79).
20th Missile Wanting Squadron, Eglin AFB, Ft (per ADCOM SO
G-182, 28 Sep 79)..
4684th Air Base Group, Sondrestrom AB, Greenland (per ADCOM ■
SO G-182, 28 Sep 79).
Assigned UnitsLost : .■ dSs. ; ;
10th Aerospace DefenTei'Squadron, Vandenberg AFB, CA
(inactivated 1 »ov,:?9, per ADCOM SO G-206, 23 Oct 79).
4603rd Management Engineering Flight, Colorado Springs, CO
(inactivated 1 Oct;p* per ADCOM -SO G-181, 28 Sep 79).
4690th Aerospace Intelligence Squadron, Cheyenne Mountain
Complex, CO (inactivated 7 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-246,
S Dec 79).
Units Beassigned'to the. Tacti cal Air Comm and fTAC):
.,.,!. ^ir^DefenseiWeaponsJsCentei.iJyndall AFBv<-H.»(reassigned-.on-"i
' 1 Oct 79,*per ADCOM>SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
■ Air Forces, Iceland.'FPOUew York 09571 (reassigned on l'-Oct
- 79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
20th Air Division, Fort Lee AFS, VA (reassiped on 1 Oct 79,
per ADCOM SO G- 205, 19 Oct 79),
21st Air. Division, Hancock Field, NY (reassigned on 1 Oct
79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
■ 23rd Air Division,' Duluth IAP, MN (reassigned on 1 Oct 79,'
' ■ - per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
24th Air Division, ; ilalmstrom AFB, MT (reassigned on 1 Oct
"'79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 'Oct 79).
25th Air Division, McChord AFB, WA (reassigned on 1 Oct 79,
. per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
26th Air Division, Luke AFB, A2 (reassigned on 1 Oct 79,
per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
425th Munitions Support Squadron, Colorado Springs, CO
(reassigned on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
Units Reassigned to the Strategic Air Command (SAC) :
2nd Communications Squadron, Buckley Field. CO (reassigned
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-24.1, 30 Nov 79).
5th Defense Space Communications Squadron, Woomera ASH,
Australia (reassigned on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241,
30 Nov 79).
6th Missile Warning Squadron, Otis AFB, HA (reassigned
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79).
7th Missile Warning Squadron, Beale AFB, CA (reassigned
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-Z41, 30 Nov 79),
12th Missile Warning Squadron, Thule AB, Greenland (reas-
signed on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79).
14th Missile Warning Squadron, MacDill AFB, PI (reassigned
, .on 1 Dec 79, per AD01M SO G-241, 30 Nov 79) • -..
'"' Pi '
20th Missile Warning Squadron, Eglin AFB, PL (reassigned
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79).
46th Aerospace Defense King, Peterson APB, CO (reassigned
on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79).
4602nd Computer Services Squadron, Peterson AFB, CO (re- vs.
assigned on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). '"
4614th Contracting Squadron, Colorado Springs, CO (reas-
signed on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79),
4684th Air Base Group, Sondrestroi AB, Greenland (reassigned
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79).
Unit Reassigned to the Air Force Coasunications Service (AFCS) :
47S4th Radar Evaluation Squadron, Hill AFB, UT (reassigned
on 1 Oct 79, per ABC0M SO G-205, 19 Oct 79).
Units Attached ^Nonejj.,.,.., ,„..,. ■,.....-,.. _ .. ,«_w«..i ■ — -w-;-*-
Station : Peterson AFB, CO
Aircraft Flown : None.
Awards and Decorations : None.
Emblem : No change. ~
" Classified SECRET by 4961 Security Classification Guide,
1 Jun 79, Declassify on 1 Dec 98.
1. The Air Force Coiumkations Service (AFCS) was re-
designated the Air Force Coiaunications Command (AFCC), effec-
tive IS Nov 79.
SOURCE: ADCOM Special Orders G Series, for 1979 (see supporting
documents to this history); N0RA0/ADC0M Pamphlet 20-S (U), subj:
Directory of NORAD/ADCOM Units, IS Mar 79 (Doc 432).
APPENDIX II
LINEAGE AND HONORS DATA
Unit Designation : NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENSE COMMAND
(Binational Command)
Pr ev ious De signation : Sane, (Established on 12 September
l'957"per agreement of the Canadian Minister of National
Defence and the JCS on 6 September 1957. The NORAD Agreement
Has concluded on 12 May 19S8 for a period of ten years and
renewed on 12 May 1968 and 12 May 1973. A now NORAD Agree-
ment was concluded on 12 May 197S for a period of five years.
[Agreement TIAS 8085 effected by exchange of notes, signed
at Washington, May 8, 1975, effective May 12, 1975.)
Authority : Exchange of notes, Ambassador of Canada and U. S.
Secretary of State, May 12, 19S8, Washington, D. C.
Higherjj: ■ JCS
Commander in Chief: Gen Earle E. Partridge
(12 Sep 57 - 31 Jul 39) .
Gen Laurence S. Kuter
(1 Aug 59 - 31 Jul 62)
Gen John K. Gerhart
(1 Aug 62 - 31 Mar 65)
Gen Dean C. Strother , ...
«.\-*.*&r>»i~*™"~ (1 Apr 6S '- 31 Jul 66)
.. .. Gen Raymond J.- Reeves- " ■
(1 Aug 66 - 31 Jul 69)
Gen Setli J. McKee
■ (1 Aug 69 - 30 Sep 73)
Gen Lucius D. Clay, Jr.
■ • -■ (1 Oct 73 • 31 Aug 75)
■^ . Gen Daniel James, Jr.
fl Sep 75 - 6' Dec 77)
■ Gen Janes E. Hill
...,,: .:.- ■■ ■:- ■ (6-Dec 77 -' 31'De'c 79)' ■'
Lt Gen James V. Hartinger
(1 Jan 80 ■
' (SO AA 2179, 20 Dec 79
HQ.OSAF, Wash., D.C.)
Deputy Commander in Chief: Air Marshal C. Roy Slemon, RCAF
(12 .Sep S7- 15 Aug
Air Marshal C. R. Dunlap, RCAF
(IS Aug 64 - 24 Aug 67)
Air Marshal William R. MacJrien, RCAF
(25 Aug 67 • 22 Jan 69)
(Lineage and Honors Data - NORAD (contd))
It Gen Frederick R. Sharp, CF
(23 Jan 69 - 14 Sep 69)
Lt Gen Edwin V, Reyno, CF
05 Sep. 69 - Sop 72)
Lt Gen R, J. Lane, CF
( Sep 72 - Oct 74)
Lt Gen Richard C. Stovel, CF
( Oct 74 - Sep 76)
Lt Gen David R. Adanson, CF
( Sep 76-7 Aug 78)
"Lt Gen Kenneth E. Leeis, CF
( 8 Aug 78 - )
(Hsg (U), KD HQ to CINCNORAU,
201240Z Mar 78)*
Assigned Units :
Baits Assigned Directly to HQ NORAD :
Alaskan NORAD Region, Elmendorf AFB, Anchorage, AS
KORAD/ABCOa Joint Support Group, Colorado Springs, CO
20th SORAD Region, Ft. Lee AFS, TA
■ 21st NORAD Region, Hancock Field, Sew York
22nd SORAD Region, CFB North Bay, Hornell Heights,
Ontario, Canada
23rd NORAD Region, Duluth LAP. UN „_„.«».__! . «.
"\'*'-24th'!fORAD;Regio3fl!al)llst™ AFBi HT
25th NORAD Region, McChord AFB, WA
26tb NORAD Region, Luke AFB, AZ
Assigned Units Lost : None
Units Attached : None
Station : Colorado Springs, CO
Aircraft Flown : None
Awards and Decorations : None
Emblem : Approved by JCS (J1DM-447-72) , Memorandum for
the Commander In Chief, North American Air
Defense Command, subj: NORAD Organizational
Emblem and Medallion, 31 July 1972. (See
attached sheet J
SOURCE: Histories of NORAD/CONAD/ADC, 1957-78
(material used V) ; msg (U) , ND HQ to CINCNORAD,
201240Z Mar 78 (Doc 433) .
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
Alaskan Air Command
Antiballistic missile ■
"■'Air Defense "Artiller)"'-': - ! '
Aerospace Defense Center
ADCOS Air Defense Combat Operations Staff
ADP Automated Data Processing
AJTAC • Air Defense Tactical Air Command
ADWC Air Defense Weapons Center
A£ Architectual engineering
AERODS Aerospace Defense Squadron
AERODW Aerospace Defense King
AF ■ Air force
AFB Air Force Base
AFCS Air Force Communications Service ,
' AFENA Air Force Element, NORAD/ADCOM ;
AFETR Air Force Eastern Test Range
AFLC Air Force Logistics Command
AFMPC Air Force Military Personnel Center
AFS Air Force Station
AFSC Mr Force specialty code/Air Force Systems
Command
AFTEC Air Force Test and Evaluation .Center
.AFWTR,.^ ,. 1 Air..Force.»estern Test .Range;..-'.-.,-.. .*-•.-. — j~. ._
■AK ' 'Alaska .... ;
AL Alabama " .'."'. . 1/.
ALCOP ' Alternate Command Post ■'."
ALMV ■ Air launched miniature vehicle " ,
ALTAIR' . ARPA Long Range Tracking and. Instrumentation-
Radar'
ANG '■; Air National Guard
ANGB Air National Guard Base
ANMCC Alternate National Military. Command Center
ANR ' Alaskan NORAD Region
APDM ■ Amended Program Decision Memorandum ■
ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency ' ' ■'■ '
ARTCC.-'., . Air, Route -Traffic Control Center. •■
ASAT Anti-satellite System
ABACS Airborne. Warning and Control System
AWACW Airborne Warning and Control King
AWC . Air Weapons Controller
AW{F) ' ' All Weather {Fighter}'
AZ Arizona
BAA Backup aircraft authorized
BLOS Beyond line of site
BMEWS Ballistic .Missile Early Warning System
BMO Ballistic Missile Office
CA, . • .
.California ■' , . .',.....■..;;..■.■ ,-.:.v — '-■
XADIN
' Continental Alr'DefensY Integration North
CF
Canadian Forces
CGS
CONUS Ground Station
CINC
Commander in Chief
CINCAD
Commander in Chief, Aerospace Defense. Command
CINCLANT ■
Commander in Chief, Atlantic
CINCNOMD
Commander in Chief, North American Air Defense
Command
CINCSAC
Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command
CJCS .
' Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
CO
Colorado
COC
Combat Operations Center
COMAAC
Commander, Alaskan Air Command
CONUS
Continental United States
CSAF
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force
csoc-
Consolidated Space Operations Center
CSS
Communication System Segment
BAD.
Designated alert detachment
DAFC
Department of the Air Force Civilians
D-Colo
Democrat-Colorado
4 "Deptity<Chief'-of'Staff"
Defense
Detachment
' Distant Early Warning
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program .
Department of Defense
Defense System Acquisition Review Committee
Defense System Fvaluation Squadron
Defense Support Program
•Development Test -and Evaluation
Design Verification Period
Detection and Warning ...
Electronic couiiter-couhtermeasure
Electronic countermeasure
Enhanced Distant Early Warning
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Enlisted Men
Electromagnetic compatibility
Electromagnetic pulse
Electromagnetic radiation
Equivalent Operational Capability
Enhanced Perimeter Acquisition Re
Characterization System
Experimental Radar Systems
Electronic Systems Division
Experimental test^ site
Federal Aviation Administration
Fighter Interceptor Group
fighter Interceptor Squadron
Florida.-,- ■ '•-■- *
■ Final operational capability
Follow-on Interceptor
Any Forces Command
Fiscal year
General Accounting Office ■_■:'.;
Ground-to-air Transmitter /Receiver , '
■ Ground based laser
Ground communications 'network ■
Ground-based Electro-optical Deep Space
System
Greenland, Iceland, and United Kingdom
Guided missile test
Global Positioning System NORAD. Control
■ Center
...^eneral^chedule.^
General Telephone Service Corp".
w'SMW^-tfKS'WV/ : *&&**■
Hughes .Aircraft Company ," - '
' Hawaii ; - ■'
Headquarters
International Business Machines
Iceland
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
That is-. * :,.
Inspector General ' ;
■Initial operational capability :
Initial, operational .test. and. evaluatit
Implementation period
International Security Affairs
Instrumented test vehicle
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Joint Enroute Terminal System
Joint Manpower Program
Joint Surveillance System
Joint Table of Distribution
Joint U.S. /Canada Air Defense Study
LA Louisiana
IOA letter of Offer and Acceptance
LOC Limited operational capability
tRR long range radar
Lti letter . .....
MA Massachusetts
MAJCOM Major command
MCP Military Construction Program
MD ' Maryland
■ME Maine ' "'
Memo Memorandum
MEW Missile Early Warning
MFP Major Force Programs
MG/8 Message Generator/Recorder
MGT Mobile Ground Terminals
MI Michigan
MIP Missile impact predictor
MN Minnesota
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOT Ministry of Transportation
MOTIF Maui Optical Tracking and Identification
Facility
MPC Military Personnel Center
MPF ■ Multipurpose Facility
Msg Message ■
. Mt.— *.~ . Mount „«,*«-,*» • ..
MT Montana
MUX. ■•, "Multiplexor ' '•
MHO Missile Warning "Officer
MWS Missile Warning Squadron
NADIS NORAD/ADCOM Digital Interface System
NAS NORAD Alerting System/Naval Air Station
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration "
NATO North American Treaty Organization
NAVSRASUR U.S. Navy Space Surveillance System
NCMC
NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex
NCOC
NORAD Combat Operations Center'
ND.
■ North- Dakota ■ • ■
NDHQ
National Defence Headquarters
NEACP
National Emergency Airborne Command Post
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NJ
New Jersey .
NM
New Mexico
NMCC
National Military Command Center
NOE
NORAD Operational Evaluation
NORAD
North American Air Defense Command
NR
NORAD Region
Operator display console
Overseas ground station
Operating location
Operations and maintenance
Operational plan
Oregon
Operations Review Board
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Operational Support Module
Over-the-horizon Backscatter
Pennsylvania-. .. ■■ •
Primary aircraft authorized
Pacific Air Forces
Pacific-radar barrier
Perimeter acquisition radar
Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack
Characterization System
Programs Document
Permanent Joint Board on Defense
Program Management' Assistance Group
Program Management Directive -
-Prptotype,,ffission,.Operat-ioits»Center,
Program Objective Memorandum' '— -
Planning, Pr6gram»'ingT : and';BUdget : ing""System
Programming Plan- ■ ■ "' ■'' ' -
■ Radio Corporation of. America
," Radar Control Center ''
' Republican-Colorado
Research and' Development ' ---.--■
Retired ,..'.-.,
Radar height data converter
Reduction in' force
Reliability, maintainability and availability
Required -Operational Capability-. . <■• -
Region Operations Control Center
Strategic Air Command
Semi-automatic ground environment
Space and Missile" Systems Organization
South Carolina
Space Division
Secretary o£ Defense
Sensor evolution development
Sea-launched ballistic missile
SHOPS Space Mission Organization Planning Study
SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
SOC Satellite Operations Center/Statement of
Operational Concept
.SON, . ... Statement of.. pperational..need ., -.,,.
SOPC Shuttle Operations and Plaining' Center
SPADATS Space Detection and Tracking System
SPADOC Space Defense Operations Center
SPO System Program Office
SPS Simplified Processing Station
Sq Squadron
SQT System qualification training
St. Saint
STC Satellite Test Center
TAG' Tactical Air Coimmd
TCV Technical Control Unit
TDDL Tine division data 'lini
TDY Temporary duty £.'.*■ -.
TFS Tactical Fighter '"Squadron
TFW Tactical Fighter Wing ■
TNCC Tyndall NORAD Control Center
TOR Terms of Reference
TPR Trained personnel requirement
TRW Thompson-Ramo-Woolridge Corp.'
TV Television '/;,. ■ :; ' ■•'
JX^. ,. t -,.Iexas,„. r ™« t ,4 '. ' ■" ''■.-.•■ ■--,-- --*
IMF. " ■■ Ultra high frequency-' ''. '"' '■.'■ •'" .'
(IK United Kingdom' ■
UMD Unit Manning Document .
U.S. United. States ■• ..
USA United States Army"
USAF United States Air Force
USAFE United States Air Forcjs in Europe
U.S.C. United States.-'Code '. • . ; ... .
USCINCEUR United States Commander in Chief , 'Europe
USEUCOM United States European Command
USN United States Navy ■
■USSR' ' Union of Soviet Socialist Republics "■
VA Virginia
\ Readiness State
LIST Of SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
(S) Msg, CINCNORAB ;o HDHQ, sub] : Renewal of NORAD
Agreement (U), 13224SZ Nov 79.
(S) Hsg, SecState to AKEMBASSY Ottawa, subj: CINCNOSAB
Billet (0), 192318Z Sep 79.
(C) Hsg, AMBIBASSY Ottawa to SecState, subj: CINCNORAD
Billet til), 282009Z Dec 79.
{U) U.S. Air Force Biography, Lieutenant General James V.
Hartinger.
(S) Hsg, .AMBIBASSY Ottawa to SecState, subj: Reorgani-
zation of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning
Systems (0), 221654Z Dec 78.
(S) Msg, AMBIBASSY Ottawa to SecState, subj : Reorgani-
zation of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning (U),
230005Z Dec 78.
, (C). Msg,_SecState to AMBffiASSYOttawa, subj': Reorganiza-
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Sys*
terns; (U)-, 0820192 Jan- 79. ■ -. ■.
(C) Msg, SecState to AMBIBASSY Ottawa, subi : Reorganiza-
tion of 'USAF Air'Defense and Surveillance/itaniing Sys-
tems. (U), 1318501 Jan 79.
(C) Msg, USDAO -to SecState, subj: Reorganization of USAF
Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Systems (U),
162233Z Jan 79. ' '
12. (S) Msg, USDAO to SecState, subj: Reorganization of USAF
Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Systems CD),
' 262135Z Jan 79. ' '
13. (S) Msg, SecState to AMEMBASSY Ottawa, subj: Reorganiza-
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Re-
sources, 080750Z Feb 79. ■ ■ ■
14. (S) Msg, USDAO to USAF, subj : Reorganization of USAF Air
Defense and Surveillance/Warning Resources (U),
151847Z Feb 79.
15. (S) Mr to Admiral Robert H. Falls, Chief of the De-
fence Staff, Canadian National Defence Headquarters,
'from Cen David C. Jones, Chairman, JCS, no subject,
8 Mar 79.
16. (U) Meeting Minutes of the Second Combined Air Defense
Reorganization Planning Conference, 9-11 Jan 79, with
5 atch.
17. (u) Talking/Discussion Paper on ADCOM Reorganisation,
28 Feb 79, with 3 atch.
18. (S) Memo' for the Record, subj: Proposed Reorganization
of USAFAir Defense, and Surveillance/Warning Resources,
. 28 Feb-79j;SwUh;l-atdi.. .
19. (U) Meuo for Gen lev Allen/Gen James A. Hill from Under-
secretary of the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark, subj: ADCOM,
22 Feb 79:;;..
20. (U) Me.o for It Gen Hilliam Creech from Dr. Hans Mark,
no subject, 20 Oct 77.
21. (U) Memo for Gen Anderson from It Col Owen Woraser,
WAR, Hq IISAF, subj: ADCOM Reorganization Proposal,
221 (S) Ltr'tO'Gen Lew Allen, CofS, USAF, from Gen J. E.
■ -Hill, CINCAD,' n.d:, 22 Feb' 79 (transmitted 'by DACOM'ff
secure teletype network) . •
23. (S) Itr to Gen James E. Hill , CINCN05AS/ABC0M, fron Gen
Lew Allen, CSAF. no subject, -19 Mar 79. ■
24. (D) Ltr to "Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, from Gen Janes E, Hill, '
no subject, 16^.Apr 79. ; . t ..
25. (If) ADCOM Programming Plan 79-3, Aerospace Defense Re-
organization, 5 -Mar 79.
26. (ti) Msg, ADCOM to SAC,' subj: Aerospace Defense Reorgan-
ization, 022215Z Apr 79.
27. (U) ltr to All BCSs/CMefs of Special Staff Elements
from Gen James' E. Hill, subj: ADCOM Reorganization,
29 Mar 79.
28. (U) Msg, CIOORAD to AIG 7142, subj: ADCOM Reorganiza-
tion, 2915012 Mar 79.
(U) A collection of articles from the Colorado Springs
Gazette Telegraph and Colorado Springs Sun pertaining
to the proposed phaseout of ADCOM for tn¥"year 1979.
,.,(U) .Transcript of' tape jscocdfd-^^.^^i^Sji^IICgM/w
•:OI,"'"Aif 'Force/Colorado "Springs' Public Meeting, '20 Apr •
31. ft') Ltr to Gen James E. Hill, CINCNORAD, from Mr, William
J. Hybl, Attorney at Law, no subject, 26 "Apr 79, with 1.
atch.
32. (0) ltr to The Honorable Ken Kramer, House of Represent-
atives, froa Mr. R. W. Gutmann, Director, U.S. General -
Accounting Office, no subject, 2S Jun 79. . :;-:*:*>%*<
33. (B) 32 CF.R. Z&de of Federal Regulation; Section 214.7;
as quoted in Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Re- '.
quest for Preliminary Injunction and Denying Motion to
Dismiss or for Summary Judgment in Civil Action No. 79-
F-4S1 (Killett et al v. Brown et al), United States
District Court Tor the District oFColorado, 23 May 79.
34. (U) Study, "Environmental Impact Assessment for the
Proposed Reorganization of the USAF Air Defense and Sur- .
veillance Resources/'April 1978. ' '■
35. (U) "Negative Determination for Proposed Reorganization
of USAF Aerospace Defense Forces/' Col F. J: Smith,'.
Chairman, HQ USAF Environmental: Protection Committee',
17 Hay- 78. ■ ■'■''■
36. (U) "Supplement to Negative Determination and Environ-
mental Assessment for Proposed Reorganization of USAF -g.
Aerospace Defense Forces," Col Francis J. Smith, Chair-'"
man, HQ USAF Environmental Protection Committee,' 7' Feb
•79.
37. (U) "Supplement No. 2 to Negative Determination and
'■"■ ■ 'Environmental Assessment tor' Proposed Reorganization! of
USAF Aerospace Defense Forces," IS Mar 79..
38. (S) Msg, CINCAD to USAF, subj : Environmental Analysis
of ADCOM Reorganization (U), 012100Z Feb 79.
39. (S) Msg, USAF to CINCAD, sub) : Environmental Analysis
of ADCOM Reorganization (U), 1318302 Mar 79.
40. (0) Summons, Civil Suit, Richard N. Willett et al v.
Harold Brown et al, Civil Case No. 79-F-451,~Tn"The
United StatesTjstrict Court for the District of
.Colorado,. .17,;Apr '79 ... "■ ...... ... •■■ -■.'..,■„
'41 . (U) Answer, Civil. Suit Willett et al y. Brown et al ,
Civil Case No. 79-F-451, in theTJnlted States Mstritt
Court for the District of Colorado, no date,
42. (U) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment, Suit of Willett v. Brown, Case No. 79-F-451,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, ;by Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 18 Jul 79.-
43. (U) Report, "Formal Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Reorganization of the USAF Air Defense and
Surveillance/Warning Resources," 29 Jun 79, revised
11 Jul 797 ' ■ .
44. (U) Motion to Amend Order, Suit of Willett v. Brown,
Case No. 79-F-451, in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, by Joseph Dolan, U.S.
Attorney,. 23 Jul. 79. ......
5i 4S^ ; (UrProposH-'Stipplemental'0rder7 SuifofBillett v.-"-****
Brown, Case No,- 79-F-451, in the United States. district
Court for' the. District of Colorado, 24 Jul- 79. :
46. (U) itr to'CTet.'al from' Col john'W. Fahniey, ADCOM/JA,
subj : Litigation: ADCOM Reorganization, 20 Jul 79;
47. (U) Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion .
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment,
Suit Willett .v. Brown, Case No. 79-F-4S1, in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado,
.1 Aug 79,
48.' (U)- Defendants' Reply. to 'Plaintiffs' Opposition to. Motion'
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment,
' Suit Willett V. Brown, 'Case'No. 79-F-4S1, in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado,
Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 8 Aug 79.
49. (U) Minute Order, Suit Willett v. Brown, Case No. 79-
F-4S1, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, 13 Aug 79.
SO, (U) Order, Suit Sillett v. Broun, Case No. 79-F-451, in
the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, signed by Judge Finesilver, 21 Aug 79.
51.. -. (FOUO) .Msg, USAF. .to -ADCOM,- subj : -ADCflM-Reorganizstion, .
" : ■■'•2513511 A|i'j;. ! 79"-'" '■'■■ •""■'
52. (U) ltr to Maj Gen tf. C. Moore, VC, ADCOM, from Maj Cen
F. A. Haeffner, DCS/Plans, TAC, no subject, IS May 79.
53. (U) Ltr to Maj Gen Fred A. Haeffner, Deputy Chief of
Staff, Plans, TAC, from Maj Gen Warren C. Moore, VC,
ADCOM, no subject, 29 May 79.
54. ■ (U) ltr to ADCOM/DP froin Maj Gen R. W. Jye, CofS, no
subject, 30 May 79.
55. (D) Msg, CINCAD to TAC et al, subj: ADCOM Reorganiza-
tion Implementation Dat57 '3T1945Z May 79.
57. (U) Msg, AFCS to CINCAD, subj: ADCOM Reorganisation Im-
plementation Date, 042320Z Jun 79.
-58. .(UB!sg,-USAF to ADCOM,- .subj: AiHIefenseiand'Surveil-' 4 "'
lance/Warning Realignment, 1520452 Jun.,79. ;
59. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Chiefs of 'Special Staff Elements,
■ from Lt Col Larry K. Curl; 'Assistant Chief of Staff,'- ADC, '
subj: ADCOM Reorganization Delay, 18 Jun 79. .
(II) Briefing, "Results of ADCOM Reorganization Conference,
25-27 Jul 79," presented by Col T. W. Jensen, OCS/Plans ■'-
Programs, and Requirements, HQ ADCOM, at CMC's morning
staff meeting, 1 Aug 79.
(U) Msg, ADCOM to TAC et ai; subj; Reorganization P-Plan
Concurrence, 312030Z Aug 75.
(U) Msg, SAC to ADCOM, subj: Aerospace Defense Reorganiza
tion P-Plan 79-3, Vol I, DTD 1 Sep 79, O41SO0Z Sep 79.
(Ul Msg, TAC to ADCOM, subj: Aerospace Defense Reorganiza
tion P-Plan 79-3, vol I, 1 Sep 79, 1012472 Sep 79.
{!)) Msg, ADCOM to USAF, subj: Programming Plan 79-3
(ADCOM Reorganization) Monthly Report for October 1979,
0915452 Nov 79,
(U) Msg, USAF to CINCAD et al, subj : Impleientation
Date for the ADCOM Reorganization, 3019002 Aug 79.
(U) ltr to All DCS and Special Stiff Elements from
■,.Ma] Cm. KU'liaiHiE. Cooper,. Jr.,.-ADCOM<CS, .subj;. 'Esiab-"
"''iMmen't' WHO/SAC ^^
(OICS), 1 Nov 79 with 1 atch.'
(U) Msg, CINCAD to AIG 7225/CC et ai.subj: Farewell
Message from CINCAD, 261S002 Sep~757. '
(U) Msg, ADC0M/DO to 20AD et al, subj : Message of Ap-
preciation, 281715Z Sep 79,
. (U) Msg, CINCAD to 2CS/CC et al, subj: ADCOM'Reassign-
Bent Action, 2819252 Sep 777 ' ■■- "'
. (FOUO) ADCOM P-Plan 79-1, "Aerospace Defense Reorgani-
zation," 1 Sep 79.
. (0) Transfer Agreement Between Aerospace Defense Com-
mand and Strategic Air Command for Peterson AFB, CO,
no date.
. (U) Msg, CINCSAC to CINCAD, subj; ADCOM Units Transfer
. Dates, UlS30Z.Oct 79,- ..'.•; ...
■ " (ft Msg, CINCAD to 'ClicSAcT subj : ADCOlflnW Trans f er ■
Dates,. 162210Z. Oct .79.' '.,...- _->-' - .". '..','
.■ -{Sj Staff Summary'- Sheet, to A/DO et 'al 'from Col .WHiam"
S. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM,- subj:' Re-
tention of Advocacy Role by CINCAD after Reorganization
[HQ USAF Interface) (U), with handwritten comments by
Gen Hill at bottom of first page, 27 Feb 79.
. (Si ltr to Gen lew Allen, 'CSAF, frore.Ger. J. E. Bill.
CINCNORAD, no subject, 26 Mar 79.
. (0) ltr to -Gen lew Allen,- CSAF, from Gen R- H.: Ellis, •■
CINCSAC, no subject, 9 Apr 79.'
. (U) Msg, CINCAD to USAF, 'subj: SAC C2 Master Plan, '
2323032 Apr 79.
. (U) Msg, USAF to TAC, subj: ADCOM Reorganization -
Organizational Responsibilities, 092223Z Jul 79.
79. (U) Memo to ADTAC/CC from Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff, Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: Advocacy, no date,
with 1 atch (Briefing, ADCOM Reorganization Conference,
2S Jul 79, presented by Lt Col Hensman, AF/XOXXC),
80. (S>. #sj, .CINCAD -to .IISAF/PA, subj';'. Air Defen5e"'-RebTgafit'- , '7"
'''"' ' zatibn (B),,07i630Z. Feb 79.-
81. ((J) Hsg, USAF/MPM to ADCOM/XP, subj ; ADCOM Reorgani-
zation - Organizational Responsibilities, 132030Z Jul 79,
82. (D) Itr to CS et al from Maj Gen Warren C. Moore, Vice
Commander in Cn7eT7 ADCOM, subj: Command Council Meet-
ing, 19 Jul 79 with 1 atch.
83., (U).Msg, CINCAD/CC to CSAF/CV, subj: ADCOM Reorganiza-"
"' 'ticn, Implementation Actions, 111727Z Sep 79.
84. . (U) Ltr to ADCOK/XP et al from Col Mary L. Fake, AFMPC
. Project Officer, subj? ADCOM Reorganization - Military
Personnel Distribution, no date.
85. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to XP from Col Ted K. Jensen,
Director, Plans, Programs, and Requirements, DCS/Plans,
subj: Reorganization Activities, 13 Apr 79.
86. (U) Ltr to ADCOM/XPX froa ADCOM/DEPR, subj : Study of
i«»***Reorgaiiization*Pro])osals , >for MORAD/ADC "at Peterson"*£FB',"**'
CO, 19 Apr 79, with 1 atch.
87. (H) Itr to Gen Leu Allen,' CSAF from Gen James E. Hill,"
CIKNORAD, no subject, 9 May 79.
88. (D) Ltr to IISAF/LEE from Maj Gen Robert K. Fye, CofS,
ADCOM,' subj: FY 1381 Military Construction Program (Our
Ltr, 12 Dec 78), 27 Apr 79.
89. .(U) Memo for the CMC from Maj Gen Warren C, Moore, Vice
Commander in Chief, ADCOM, subj: Telecon with Lt Gen
Marion Boswell, Asst Vice Chief of Staff,. Friday,. 1700, ■
■ -'■ 25 May 79; 29 May 79.
90/ -(U) Background Paper, "Facility Survey for (Reorganiza-
tion) Staff Relocation, 19 Jun 79.
91. (U) Memo for The Commander in Chief from Maj Gen Warren
C. Moore, Vice Commander in Chief, ADCOM, no subject,
12 Jul 79.
92. (U) Ltr to XP froa Maj Gen Warren C. Moore, Vice Coi-
mander in Chief, ADCOM, subj: DRAD/ADCOM Move to Peter-
son AFB, 20 Jul 79. _ ,
93 tBr'tt'to'tep/M'tra'Co'l George A 'Bohlen/DCS' '
Engineering. 5 Services, ADCOM, subj; Programming for
NORAD/ADC Headquarters Relocation to Peterson AFB,
15 Oct 79, Kith .latch. ,
94. (0) Staff Sumaary Sheet to" CC from Brig Gen Williaa E.
Lindeaan, BCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: Realign-
ment Facilities Requirements , 12 Oct 79, with 1 atch.
95. , (U) Ltr to ■■Gar Janes E..HU1, Commander in¥ch'ie£, NORAD/.r r
ADCOM./.fron Gen James- A.' Hill, Vice Chief, of'Staff.'USAF,'
no subject, ,13 Nov 79, . ,•'--■
.-'-"«/■ -' - .. '"■■
96. (S) Ltr to/Gen Lew Allen, CofS USAF, from 'Gen James E. •
Kill.iCINCNORAB, no subject, 5 Feb 79.
97. (S) Ltr to Gen lew Allen, CofS USAF, from Gen James E.
' Hill, CINCNORAD, no subject, 27 Apr 79.
98. (S) Ltr to Gen Richard L. Lawson, Director ofPlans and
\ Programs;--.J-5,'JCVfroa Gen James E. Hill, CINCAD,
■ • W'<> s si!bjert*'27»Apr"79;~*!'' •"•^"'•" m ^ i - f -^" ! "- ■» " ««7»
99. (S) .Background'' Paper, on Space •Mission-Organization'Plan-
ning Study' (SMOPS), 14 Jan 80.. . ■. . .
100. (U) Ltr to Gen Lew Allen, CofS USAF, froa Gen James E.
Hill, CINC/D, no subject, 21 Dec 79.
101. (U) Ltr to Honorable Hans M. Mart, Secretary of the Air
Force, froa Gen James E. Hill, CINCAD, no subject,
26'Dec 79. '.....■
102. (S) Ms g, NDHQ" Ottawa to CDLS Washington, subj: North
'"American Ai''r:Defe'nse*'(D),"10'2001Z May '!.:■'
103. (D) Ltr to Chairman, JCS from Gen James E. Hill, CINCAD,
subj: Modernization of North American Air Defense Sys-
teos in Canada and Alaska (Your Memo, CM-1940-78, 24 May
78), 14 Jun 78.
105. (C) Msg, JCS/J-S to CINCKORAD/XP, subj: Terms of Refer-
ence, Joint U.S. Canadian Air Defense Study (U),
292359Z Nov 78.
106. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Col. H. S.
■ , .Tetlock. (<£)<> ■••test, DCS/ Plans:»nl Programsv'NORAD,' subj-:-'-
Joint U.S. -Canadian Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) Prelim-
inary Results Briefing (U), 9 Apr 79, with 1 atch.
107. (C) Staff Summary Sheet to XP etal.from Col louis L.
Churchill, Special Assistant, KS/Tlans '6 Programs,
NORAD, subj: Joint U.S. Canada Air Defense Study
(JUSCADS) Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, 11-12 Apr 79 - Trip
Report (U), 18 Apr 79, with 2 atch.
108. (C) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Col William R. s
Kenty, Assistant DCS/Plans anOrograns , ADCOM, subj:
Joint U.S. -Canadian Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) (U),
IS May 79, with 1 atch.
109. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Brig Gen
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans anifPrograms , ADCOM,
subj: Report of Joint JUSCADS Working Group Meeting (U),
4 Jun 79, with 1 atch.
110. (S) Msg, CINCNORAD to OSD/ISA et al, subj : JUSCADS
Tentative Conclusions BriefihgTUTT 0621301 Jun 79.
111. (S) Talking Paper on Joint U. S. Canada Air. Defense
• Study" (JUSCADS)' (U),- 17 Oct 79." "'■'..''
112. ' (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al'from Col William E.
Kenty, Assistant DCS/Plans andTrograms, ADCO, subj:
JUSCADS Joint Working Group Memorandum to Mr. Aldridge,
Study Director (U), 4 Sep 79, with 1 atch. -=
113. (S) Msg, NORAD/J-5 to OSD/ISA et'al, subj; NORAD Com-
■ merits on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep~79 (D), 021500Z Oct 79.
114. (S) Msg, tfORAD/J-5 to'OASD/ISA et al, subj: NORAD Com-
ments on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep 7S (U), 0520307. Oct 79.
115. (S) Ltr to Mr. James V. Siena, Deputy Assistant Secretary
(European and NATO Affairs), OSD, from Gen James E. Hill,
CINCAD, no subject, 4 Oct 79,
116. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Maj Gen C. A.
LaFrance (CF), DCS/Plans and Programs, subj: Joint US/
Canada Air Defense Study -(JUSCADS) (U), 17 Oct 79.
(S) Msg, SecState to AMEMBASSY Ottawa, subj : Joint
U.S. /Canada Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) (U),
181706Z Oct 79.
119. (S) Msg-, CINCNORAD/CC to OASD/ISA et si, subj: JUSCADS
Final Results Briefing (U), 14Z310TNOV 79,
120. ' prj.Hsg; NORAD/J-5 to JCS/J-5, subj; NORAD Comments on
JUSCADS Final Report, 282250Z Nov 79.
121. (U) Ltr,.to Mr. Jaies V. Siena, Deputy Assistant Secre-
i. tary,- (European!, and NATO Affairs),. from.Gen, James E.
■ ■■'-■' Hill',' CINCAD.-.'rio subject, "2rd)ec 79.:-'
122. (C) Msg; SECDEF/USDP to CINCNORAD, subj: JUSCADS Final
•;:' lesultSjBriefing (U), 262315Z Dec 79.
123. (S) Ltr to Gen David C.Jones, Chairman, JCS, from Gen
James E. Hill, CINCNORAD, no subject, 28 Nov 79, with
1 atch.
124. (S) Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from Vice
. Aduiral.Thor Hanson, Director JS, subj:. .Policy. Recom-
' ' \ mendations. for North' American^r^Mejise ,Jl!),,,10;,D.ec ,. .
125. (S) Ltr to USAF/XO from Lieutenant General James V.
Hartinger, CINCNORAD, subj:' North American Air Defense
(HQ USAF/CV Memo, 10 Jan 1980) (U), 18 Jan 80, with 1
atch. ■ ,
126, (S) Interest Paper on" Policy Recommendations for North
American Air Defense Developed in Response to the Joint
Unite.d. States/Canada Air Defense Study. (JUSCADS) (U),
. ' lS.Jan 80. ■ ■ . ••
12.7. ,,(U),itr to All CCSs. and.Chiefs of .Special, Staff Elements,
.."''from Capt J. B. -B. Minnigerode (USN),' Assistant DCS/
Intelligence/J-2, subj: Internal Reorganization of
NORAD-ADCOM/IN, 5 Dec '79, with 1 atch.
128. (U) Msg, USAF/MPMO to ALMAJCOM-SOA, subj: Retitle of
Information Function, 2721302 Aug 79.
129. (U) HQ NORAD/ADCOM Staff Bulletin No. 39, 4 Oct 79.
subj .- ADCOH/DB Reorgan-
131," '(U)'- : BooH'etrTraisfer'df*Kuriction anff "ftedu'ct i'b» ^ in - "
Force Prepared by Aerospace 'Defense Command Directorate
of Civilian Personnel, no date.
132. (0) Booklet, Procedures for Functional Transfer of
Civilian Employees, ABCOM,' Mar 79,
133. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements,
from Maj Jerry C, Hix, Chief, Information Division,
Command Directorate of Information,- subj rl.ADCOM Re- y-
organization: Langley'AFB VA Briefings, 11 Sep 79,
134. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Special Staff Elements Through
Directorates, from Mr. C. L.. Shinn, Director of Civilian
Personnel, ADCOM, subj: Counseling on RIP and Transfer
' of Function, 31 Oct 79.
135. (U) Msg, ADCOM/XPMQ to Det 4/CC, sub) : Manpower File
Freeze, 2415302 Aug 79.
136. ■ (D) ltr from Mr. Arthur J. Peterson, Civilian Personnel
,', „^„_0ff icer,,ADCOM/l)PCS„subj : i J>reliminary..,pff er„oij£ans.- „,
""fer of Function, 4 Sep 79," _ ■
137. (U) Msg, ADCOM/DPC to OSAF/MPK, subj: ADCOM Realign-
ment, 071'800'Z Jun 79.
138. (U) ltr from Evelyn Kidwell, Civilian Personnel Officer,
46th "Aerospace Defense King (SAC), subj: Notice of
Reduction in Force - Transfer of Function, 1 Nov 79. '.^
139. .(0) Ltr from Evelyn Kidwell, Civilian personnel Officer,
46th Aerospace Defense Wing (SAC), subj: Notice of
Reduction in Force ■ Transfer of Function, 1 Nov 79,
with 4 atch.
140. (U) Briefing to CINCAD by ADCOM DCS/Personnel, no date.
141. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements
from Maj Gen Iferren C. Moore, Vice Commander in Chief,
ADCOM, subj: Civilian Personnel Hiring Freeie ■ Peter-
son AFB Complex, 10 Apr 79.
143. (U) Staff. Summary Sheet to CS et al from Col William It..
■ Kenty, Assistant DCS/Plans 'andTroglais, 'ADCuM, ''subj; ;
Officer Grade Reduction, 20 Har 79', with 1 atch.'
144. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to CC from Brig Gen William E.
Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj : ADCOM
Officer Grade Reduction, 9 Feb 79, with 1 atch.
145. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to CC from Brig Gen William E.
Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: ADCOM
Officer Grade Reduction, 8 Har 79.
■146. (D)' Staff Summary Sheet to CS from Brig Gen William E.
' Lindeman, BCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: ADCOM
Officer Reduction, 4 Apr 79, with 1 atch.
147. (II) Ltr to Lieutenant General Andrew P. losue, Deputy
CofS, Manpower and Personnel, from Gen James E. Hill,
CINCAD, no subject, 5 Apr 79, with 2 atch.
148. (U) Ltr to CINCNORAD/ADCOM (Gen J. E. Hill) from Lieu-
tenant General S..L. Davis, Deputy CofS, Manpower and
■ ^Perspnnel^subj:^eponing^Procedures^for the. ^1980,^,
"^ '■' Generarb'fficer Manning and Position Review Boardj
- '13 Feb 79. - ■ "... ■ •■■■'•'■ '•'■■' "
149. (D) Ltr to' 'Gen James E. Hill, CINCNORAD/ADCOM from
Lieutenant General B. L. Davis, Deputy CofS, Manpower
and Personnel, no subject, 15 Mar 79, with 1 atch.
150. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to XP from Col Joedan J.
Saunders, Director of Manpower and Organization, DCS/
Plans and Programs, subj: General Officer Reduction,
■9'May 79.
151. .(U) Ltr 'to ADCOM/B,from Col William R. Kenty,' Assistant
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: General Officer
Reduction, 11 May 79.
152. (S) Ltr to 20NR/CC from Maj Gen Robert ». Fye, CofS,
subj: Joint Table of Distribution (0) (Your Ltr,
12 May 79), 2 Apr 79.
Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991
Published by:
Chadwyck-Healey inc., 1101 King Slreet, Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Military Uses of Space: 1 946- 1 99 1 provides a detailed record of the strategic importance of the U.S.
military space program (ram the conceptualization of the uses of space to the present realization of
advanced capabilities. Materials were identified, obtained, assembled, and indexed by the National
Security Archive, a nonprofit, Washington, D.C. based research institute and library. The microfiche
collection is accompanied by Military Uses of Space: 1946*1 991 Guide and index.
Arrangement of Information on the Microfiche:
The documents are arranged in chronological order. A unique identification number is assigned to
each document. Each new document begins a new fine on the microfiche.
Document Quality:
The quality of the original materia! varies. lnlhecaseofeachdocument,Chadwyck^ealeylnc.has
filmed the best ccpy made available by the National Security Archive.
Microfiche Numbering:
The unique identification numbers assigned to the documents are listed in the top right hand comer
of the microfiche title strip.
Technical Data:
Producing Laboratory: ChadwyckHeatey Inc.
Date of Publication of Microfiche Edition: 1991
Format: 49 frame, 105mm x 14&nm silver bslide microfiche, 24x nominal reduction
of the arrangement of pages on microfiche may be made without the written permission of
Chadwyck-Healey inc. for interna! and reference use only and not for resale.
Distribution Outside the USA:
Chadwyck-Healey Ltd., Cambridge PI
Document Quality:
Through ihe use of the Freedom of information Act and an extensive network of government, media,
and academic contacts, the National Security Archive l%s developed this varied colfeclbn of primary
materials. Just as the type of materials included varies, so does (he quality of each document.
The National Security Archive has made every effort to provide Chadwyck-Healey inc. with the best
quality, most complete copy available of each document. Chadwyck-Healey Inc. has faithfully
reproduced on microfiche exactly what was provided by ihe Natbnal Security Archive.
Many of the documentsinduded in this publication were previously classified by the U.S. Government
and even when dedassified, sections or pages may be obliterated by the government due to the
potentially sensitive information contained in them.
The variety of material reproduced in this publication includes photocopies or poor carbon copies of
cables, memoranda, intelligence reports, briefing papers, Congressional reports, official fetters, and
press reports. This variety can present dSficutttesof imageand conlrast which the mostcareful filming
and processing cannot entirely overcome.
This is a rich and varied source of primary documents made available for research and all microfiche
have been produced to the highest quality and conform to AIIM, BS1 and ANSI standards.
(U) Ltr to J-S froi Ma] Gen Robert It. Fye, CofS, NORAD,
subj; U.S. Army Manpower Resources in NORAD, 11 Apr 79.
(U) Ltr from Maj Gen Robert II. Fye, CofS, NORAD, subj:
Coordination of Out, of Cycle Change to the NORAD Joint.. ...
Manpower Prograi (JHP) , ' lT3un 79. ' ■'."•'
(U) Ltr to JCS/J-5 from Col Joedan J. Saunders, Director
of Manpower and Organisation, DCS/Plans and Programs,
subj : 1 Oct 79 Out of Cycle Change to the NORAD/ADCOM
Joint' Manning Program (JMPJ, W Aug '79, 'with 1 atch.
(S) Staff Summary Sheet to NORAD COC/CC/DP from Maj Gen
Bruce K. Brown, DCS/Operations, subj: Increased Man-
power, Authorizations for Det 1,'SORAD COC, Tinker AFB, ■-?
OK (U), 2 May 79, with 1 atch.:. v ; , ./,
(S) Ltr to SORAD/DO from Maj Gen R. R. -.Barber, DCS/Plans
and Programs, NORAD, subj: Increased Manpower Authori-
zations for Det ■ 1, NORAD COC, Tinker AFB, OK (Your Ltr,
3 May 79) (U), with 1 atch.
(II) Ltr to ADCOM/XPM from It Col Harry H, Hurst, Deputy
Chief, Programs Division, Directorate of Manpower and
Organization, subj: Increased Manpower Requirements •
for E-3A NORAS Mission Crews (Your- ltr,! 14' May 79),
,. 3Q.JulJ5,v.with 1 atch/.-.-rfsStajg***. *-*-i*.' .*- ■ - « J ** ; -•■ »
(UJ- Memorandum- for. Record; -Col Joedan J;* Saunders;- '
Director/Manpower and Organization, DCS/Plans snd.Pro-'.-.
grams, subj: Redistribution of SPADOC Resources, 11 Jul
160. (U) Ltr to Air Divisions from ADCOM DO, subj: Weapons 4 _
Controller Manning and Experience Levels, 16 Jan' 79. ■"
161. ,(U) Briefing, Monthly Management Review by the Comptrol-
ler - 26 October 1979, Briefer"- Colonel Louis R.
Ravetti, 26 Oct 79, 'with 1'atch.
162. (S) Staff Summary. Sheet tff CS from Col Frank R. Wisneski,
Command Inspector General, "subj: ' Summary' : of USAF/IG
Inspection Report USAF Support to NORAD (U), 27 Feb 79,
with 1 atch. ....
163. (S) Ltr to AF/A? et al, from Maj Gen Len C. Russell,
Deputy Inspector General for Inspection and Safety,
subj: Interim Action Reports, Special Inspection of
USAF Support to NORAD, PN 80-2056 (0), 18 Jan 80, with
2 atchs.
(S) Briefing, Outbrief of IG Inspection given to
CINCNORAD and Staff by Mr. Bob Nolan fron the Air
Force Inspection and Safety Center at Nolan, 15 Bee
165. (S) Staff, Summary Sheet to IG et al,' froo Maj Gen
Bruce K. Brown, DCS/Operations, suFj: CINC Visit with
USAF K (0), 2 Jan 80, Kith 1 atch.
166. (S) Memo to Maj Gen Bruce K. Brown froo Maj Killias P.
Knudsen, Executive to the CINC, subj: Topic N/DOZ SSS
23 Nov 79, 26 Nov 79, Memo to Maj Gen Bruce K. Brora
from Maj William P. tadsen, Executive to the CINC,
sane subj, 26 Nov 79, Staff Summary Sheet to H/CS et ■ ;
al, from Maj Gen Bruce K, Brown, DCS/Operations, sub~j:
Operations Review Board Report, 23 Nov 79, 1 atch,
Operating Review Board Report (S) ,
167. (S) Defense Intelligence Agency DACOM Transmittal Sheet
to Capt. Budura, ADCOM, from Maj Boyd, OJCS J-3 EA Div,
subj: NEACP 535-79, 19 Kov 79,
168. (0) Memo froo Washington, subj: Alert Alarm, 9 Nov 75.
Also a collection of newspaper clippings regarding the
9 Nov Incident.
' 169" (S) "SecState lfalhDFtTiiJHNT/BSMissi'on SnTet. aT,**""
subj: Soviets and the False Missile Alert, "2800222.
Nov 79; '• ;
170. (II) Memo for the Record, to ATSD/LA et al, froa Maj Pat
Sweeney, OATSD (Legislative Affairs) suHJ: Continuation
of Congressional Briefings in Response to NORAD Alert
Inquiries, 5 Dec 79.
171. (S) Msg, J-3 to ASD/C3I Wash DC et al, subj; Meeting
Between Members of NORAD Staff aH Sen Hart, ' 20211SZ
Dec 79.
172. . (U) Ltr to ADC0M/D02, from Col Philip A. Deering, Dep-
uty Comjnander for Data Automation, subj: Operational
Review Board Status, 29 Nov 79, 1 atch.'
173. (S) Msg, J-3 to JCS/C3S Bash DC, subj: NORAD ORB Up-
date (H), 291708Z Nov 79.
174. (S) Msg, DO to JCS/J3/C3S/WMCS Eval Hash DC et al,
subj: False Indications at 091S512 Nov 79, 30TJ5W
Nov 79.
175. (S) Msg, N0RAD/J6 to HQ USAF/XOK Wash DC et al, subj :
Missile Warning Scenario Control, 050215Z Dec 79.
176. (S) Background Paper, "9 Nov 1979 False Indications",
:• by Maj Sapp, NORAD/DOPC,' 26 Dec 79,~
177. (S) Staff Sumary Sheet to N/DO from Lt Col Kenneth
E. Lager, Confignration/Control, subj: Action Iteu
" "( (D), 04. Jan 80, 1 atch.
178. (S) Msg, NORAD/J-3 to JCS/J-3/C3S Wash DC, subj:
Suspension of 427M Developoent Testing (Ul, 251'1SZ
Dec .79.
179. (C) Mem to Co! Brandt froa Col Jaaes K. iowe, Dir-
ector,' Air Defense Operations, subj: Operations Review
Board (PHASE III Report), 14 Nov 79.
180. (S) Meno to Col Brandt fron Col Killiaa H. Riley, Dir-
ector of Cosaand § Control Systems, subj: Operations
Review Board (Phase III Report), 16 Nov 79.
181. (S) Msg, ADCOM/DOO to 20NH/DO Ft Lee AFS VA et al,
subj: Unit Response to (SAWS) Warning Alert,~Il"2T00Z
Sov 79. „
-aS2r fsTM^0I!ffl7m"b~JCs7j3 "ash, subj Missile Attlct '"'
• Sarning.(S),-290001Z Nov 79. -;
183. (S) Msg; K0RAD/D0O to AIG et al, subj: Missile Attack'
Warning (S), 3023072' Nov 797
184. (S) Msg, SORAD/DO to AIG et al, subj: HAS Aober Warn-
ing Test.(U), 071728Z Dec 79.
X85._ (S) Msg, NORAD/DO to AIG/M et al, subj: Missile Attack
Warning/Interiia Emergency Change I to N/A Reg 53-19,
Vol III, 15 May 79 (U); 1718002 Jan 80.
186. (0) Msg, N0RAD/J6 to JCS/C3S Wash DC et al, subj: Re-
view of NORAD Alert System (HAS) CiTcSTts, 2S23002
187. (FOUO) Interest Paper "Proposed Relocation of the Coin-
Band Section to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex" by Col
Williai R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, 8 Jan 80
188. (U) Ur to Gen Jones from Gen Janes E. Hill, Commander
in Chief, no subject, 27 Dec 79.
189. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XP from Lt Col Peter M.
Fleming, Chief, . Programs 8, Runts Oiv, subj: Talking
Papers for 1979 CIHCs' Conference (U), 13 Nov 79,
1 atch.
190. (S) Msg, CINCAD/CC to JCS/CJCS Hash DC et al, subj:
'FY 1981 CJCS ■Military Posture StatenentlU) , 1820552
Sep 79.
191. (S) Interest Paper "BMBWS Modernization (U)" by Col
Robert ' n M. Kronebusch, Director, Missile and.Space De---:^
tense, 11 Jan 80. ■ • '"■■~' i
192. (0) Msg, AFSC/SDE Andrews AFB MD to OTRHIB/HQ ADCOM/"-
XPD, subj: BMEKS Modernization, 152200Z Feb 79.
193. (S) Msg, AFSC/CC Andrews AFB MD to CSAF/CC Sash DC, et
al, sub) : Enhanced Perineter Acquisition Radar Charac-
terization, 161S16Z Mar 79.
194. (S) Msg, SSO/CC ADCOM to AFSSO/CC IKAF et al, subj:
EPARCS (U), 282220 Mar 79.
19Sr»CSnt'aff-SDSary Shtfet to A/DE^t' , •aT•froS°K^Gei'Rt*^* ,
R. Barber, DCS/Plans and Prograes, 80RAD, subj;-.BMESS .
Modernization (U), 16 Feb 79, 1 atch.
196. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/AC et al from Brig Gen
Killian E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans and" Prograus, ADCOM,
subj: BMEWS IBM 7090 Replacement, 18 Hay 79.
197. (S) Talking Paper "BMEWS Modernization" by Brig Gen
William E. tindeman, DCS/Plans and Prograus, ADCOM,
10 Jan 79. .
198. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XP et al from Col Janes
P. Foster, Jr, Dep Dir Missile an3 Space Def, subj:
BMEKS Replacement Study, 25 Apr 79, 1 atch,
199. (S) Ltr to Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen from Gen James E. Hill,
Commander in Chief, no subject, 31 Jul 79, I atch.
200. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
William E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM,
subj; BME1VS Improvement Status (U), 8 Jan 79.
201. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William
R. Kenry, Asm DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, sub j :
BMEWS Improveuent Status, 22 Jan 79.
202. (U) Heio to XP frotf Col Robert M.' Kronebusch, Director,
Missile and Space Defense, stibj: SMEWS IBM 7090 Re-
placement, 6 Sep 79, 1 atch,
203. (S) Msg, CINCNORAD/CC to CSAJ/CC Wash DC et al, subj:
BMEWS Modernization (U), 151730Z Oct 79.
204. (S) Staff Suanary Sheet to A/IS et al froa Brig Gen
William E. Lindenan, DCS/Plans aSiT Kograas, ADCOM,
subj: BMEKS Modernization, 25 Oct 79, 2 atch.
205. {S) Hem to Assistant Secretary of Defense (C 3 I) froa
Mr. Eugene H, Kopf, Principal Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary Research, Development and Logistics, subj: BMEWS
Upgrade (U)- Information Memorandum, 16 Oct 79.
206. (D) Msg, AFSC/SDE/ACB Andrews AFB MD to ffillAHQA/RDSP/
■ Wash DC, subj: BMEKS Modernization Funding fU),
0420042 Dec 79.
207. (S) Background Paper "BMEWS Modernization (U)" by Brig
\ 1 Gen r Killi2nJ.,Iindenaii, ,DCS/Plans andProgrsas, 13.j«t.
Dec 13. ■ ■
209: (S) Msg,.ADCOM/D0F to REBKJCS/NMCC Wash DC, et al,
subj: Status of Pave PAWS Missile Warning Data,Tl62310Z
Jul 79.
210. '..(D) ^ Staff. Summary: Sheet to A/DE et.aj. fron Col William
R. Kenry, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
Otis Pave PAWS Power Problems, 8 Aug 79, 1 atch.
211. (0) Msg, ADCOM/D0 to HQ DSAF/X0X/X0O/X0KS et al, subj:
Otis Pave PAWS Power Problems -and Continued Operation
of AN/FSS-7's at Ft Fisher AFS MC and Charleston AFS
ME, 15194SZ Aug 79.
212. (S) Interest Paper "6th Missile Warning SQDN (Otis
AFB) Pave PAWS (U)" by Maj Gen C. A. LA France, DCS/
Plans and Prograis, N0RAD, 17 Oct 79.
(SJ Hsg, ADCOM/DO to HQ USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB Hash DC et al,
subj: Pave Pans Missile Warning Data (U), 071645Z Sep
214. (U) Staff Suaoary Sheet to A/DO et al fron Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans anil Programs, ADCOM, subj:
PAVE PAWS Power Probleis, 31 Aug 79, 1 atch.
215. (S) Tailing Paper "PAVE PASS (0)" by Col William R.
Xenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Prograns, ADCOM, 27 Sep 79.
216. (0) Msg, ADCOM/DO to HQ USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB Wash DC et al,
subj: Otis Pave Pans and AN/FSS-7 Sixty Day Dual Op-
erations, >282145Z Sep-79.j_
217. (U) Msg,' ADCOM/DO to KQ DSAF/XOO/PAX/ACB Wash DC et al,
subj: Teraination of Otis Pave Pans and AN/FSS-7 Sixty
Day Dual' Operations, 0717102 Nov 79.
218. (<IS) Talking Paper "OTIS PAVE PAWS" 15 Jan 80.
219. (U) Staff Sussny Sheet to S/B02 et al, froa Lt Col
Francis I. Nance, Director of Space ifMsl Wrng Opera-
tions, subj : Impacts of AN/FSS-7 East Coast Extension,
12 Jan 79, 2 atchs.
'22'C ro"Msg;-HQ.DSAF/X00/PAX/ACBtOUWRNLB7Hq'K08AD et al ,
subj : Extension of AN/FSS-7 Operations at Charleston
AFS, ME and Ft. Fisher AFS, NC, 201531Z Jun 79.
221. (U) Msg, HQ USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB/XOX/RDS to RUKSNLB/HQ
ADCOM et al, subj: Continued Operation of AN/FSS-7
Radars at Ft. Fisher AFS, NC, and Charleston AFS, ME,
071330Z Sep 79. ' ■■-■■■
222. (0) Msg, HQ ADCOM/DO to HQ SAC/AC/SX Offutt AFB NE et
al, subj: Continued East Coast FSS-7 Operation, 1622US2
Nov 79. .
223. (tl) Msg, HQ SAC/ACB to RUWRNLB/HQ ADCOM et al, subj:
Continued East Coast FSS-7 Operations, 25I350Z Nov 79.
224. (0) Msg, CINCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS Offutt AFB NE et al,
subj: East Coast AN/FSS-7 SLBM Detection and Warning
Radar Continued Operation, 191420Z Nov 79.
225. (li) Msg, CINCNORAD/CC to DET S/CC/14MWS Ft Fisher AFS
NC et al, subj: Special Recognition, 212O0Z Dec 79.
226. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al f™ Brig Gen
William E, Lindeman, DCS/Plans an? Programs, ACCOM,
subj: Position Paper on PARCS (H), 10 Jan 79, 1 atch.
227. (S) Msg, ADCOH/XP to HQ USAF/RDQ Wash DC et al, subj:
EPAHCS (0), 2621452 Dec 78.
228. (S) Memo to AFSS0/C5AF/CC ft al from AFSSO/AFSC/CC,
subj: Enhanced Perimeter Acquisition Radar Characteri-
zation System (EPARCS) (U), 032330Z Jan 79.
229. (S) Msg, AFSSO/CC to AFSSO/CC AFSC et al, subj: En-
hanced Periaeter Acquisition Radar Characterization
System (EPARCS) (Your Meg 032330Z Jan 79) (U) , J01300Z
Mar 79. J
230. (S) Msg, SSO ADCOM/CC to AFSSO USAF/CC et al, subj;
EPARCS (11), 282220 Mar 79. "~
231. (S) Msg, HQ AFSC/SDE to RUEOFFA/ESD/OC Haascoa AFB HA
et a2, subj : Enhanced Perimeter Acquisition Radar Char-
acterization Systea (EPARCS), 1S1S16Z Mar 79.
232. (U) Msg, HQ USAF/RDSD to RUEOAWA/HQAFSC/SDE Andrews
AFB MD et al, subj: EPARCS, 231600Z Mar 79.
233. (S) Msg„CmCAD/aUo HQ.DSAF/RD Wash-DC et ale subj:—
'EPARCS (D), 111645Z Apr 79.
234. (S) Msg, HQ OSAF/RD to RUKRStB/HQ CIHCAD/CC et al,-
subj: EPARCS (U), 261350Z Apr 79.
235. (U) Msg, AFSC/CV to RUEAHQA/HQ USAF/RD Wash DC et. al,
subj:, EPARCS. (HQ USAF/RD Z61350Z Apr 79). 07155SZ May,
236. , ((]) Msg, HQ USAF/EDS to RHEOAWA/HQ AFSC/SD Andrews
AFBJID et al, subj: PARCS Radar Modification, PHD R-Q
8043(5), 011500Z Jun 79.-
237. (S) Msg, HQ ADC0M/D0 to AFSC/SDO/SDS Andrews AFB MD
et al, subj: Flight 8 Turnover (11), 1D232SZ Jul 79.
238. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Cen
William E. Lindeman. DCS/Plans ail Programs , ADC0M,
subj: Defense Support Program (DSP) Improvements Sta-
tus (U), 24 Apr 79.
239. (S) Msg, CINCAB/CC to liSAF/XOO/RDS Wash DC et al,
subj: DSP Operational Satellites (0), 080255Z Aug 79.
240. (S) Itr to Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen from Gen Janes E.
Hill, Commander in Chief, no subject, 31 Jul 79, 1
atch.
241. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO from Brig Gen Killiam
E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
Simplified Processing Station (SPS) Alternatives (II),
12 Jan 79, 1 atch.
242. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
WiUiei B. ..Lindeaan, DCS/Plans ana Programs, ADCOM,
subj:. Simplified Piocessing Station (SPS) Overseas
Site- (D), 20 Feb 79, latch.
243. (S) Msg, ADC6.M/XP to HQ USAF/PAX Wash DC st al, subj:
Simplified Processing Station (SPS) Overseas~S~iting
(Your Msg 062000 Apr 79) (Notal OUE) (H), 0221502 May
79,
244. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
fc'illiam E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans ail Programs, ADCOM,
subj:. Simplified Processing Station (SPS) Overseas
^•W-»Siting«(fl&H0.»Dec*79,«l--atch:~"'-~ "■" ■-" "--"""- -'
245. (S) Msg, HQ HSAF/RDS/X0O to RUWLB/HQ ADCOM et al,
subj: DSP Data Survivability Enhancements (0), 16T845Z
Feb 79.
246. (S) Ltr.to Gen James E. Hill from Charles W. Duncan,
Jr, Deputy, Secretary of Defense, no subject, 27 Feb 79.
247. (S) Ltr to Charles tf. Duncan, Jr from Gen James E. .'
FH-11, Comaander in Chief, no subject, 20 Mar 79.
248. (S) Msg, HQ ADC0M/XP to HQ AFTEC/TE Kirtland AFB NM
et al, subj: Bequest for SPS IOT5E Extension (U),
2T2» May 79.
249. (S) Msg, AFTF.C/CC to RUWRNLB/HQ ADCOM/XP/DO et al,
subj: SPS I0TSE Extension (U), 011636Z Jun 757
250. (S) Msg, ADC0M/XP to AFTEC/TE Kirtland AFB NM et al,
subj: Continued SPS Test Requireisents, 121500Z7un
251. (S) Msg, AFTEC/CC to RUWNIB/ADCOM/XP/DO et al, subj :
Termination of SPS IOTqE (U), 15Z030Z Jun"79,
252. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col Church-
. . ill, spbj,: Program .ManagementoDi«cHve-(P>l%Change
'"' ""' ' Request, "l9''Jun' 79. ". "'.■■■■
253. (S) Msg, CINCAD/CV to- HQ USAF/RDS Wash DC et al, subj:
Program Management Directive (PMD) Change Request,
221730Z Jim 79. ' --'•
254. (S) Msg, HQ USAF/XOO/RBS to RUWTFBA/AFTEC/CC Kirtland
AFB et al, subj: Siunlified Processing Stations (SPS),
1218402 Jul 79. ' - .;.
255. (S) Msg, SAMSO/SZJ to HQ AFSC/SDS Adrews AFB MD et al,
subj: Continued Simplified Processing Support (UJ7
011415? Aug 79.
256. (S) Meao to ADCOM/XP from Col Robert M. Kronebusch,
Director, Missile and Space Defense, no subject, 16
Aug 79, 2 atchs.
257. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William
. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and.Prograas, ADCOM, subj: \
"SPS Turnover' Status Review, 14 Sep J9. ',.^ ra ,' ^..^l," .
258. (U) Msg, HQ SD/SZ to ADCOM/XPD, subj: Simplified Pro-
• "erasing Station (SPS) Turnover, 312300Z Oct 79!
"259.'. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
'William E, Lindeaan, DCS/PIsns and". Programs, ADCOM,
subj: SPS Turnover Status (0), 21 Kov 79.
260.' (S) Msg, CINCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS/SX Offutt AFB HE et
al, subj: Management Transfer Date for OIAE HQ ADCOM
• fornhuslcer AAP NE (U), 162215Z Nov .79. - - - ■
26L (U) Ltr to HQ NORAD/.PAM from Lt Col. Terence. J.. O'Rourke,
■ ' Chief,' Tec Data 8 Systems Div, subj: Information on 1979
Space Activities, 4 Jan 80. ■
262. (D) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et »1 from 'Brig Gen
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans an? Programs, ADCOM,
subj: MOTIF Transition Program, 18 Sep 79.
263. (Sj Background Paper, "AM/CPS-10 Relocation Project (0),
25 Jul 79.
264. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et at from Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs', ADCOM, subj:
Status Report on PACBAR Eastern and Western Sites, 11 .
Apr 79. •■'•■■•'•
265. (S) Interest Paper, "The ALTAIR Radar" 1 Jun 79.
266. (U) Background Paper, "Ground-Based Electro-Optical
Deep Space Surveillance '(GEODSS) System" 17 Apr 79.
267. (U) Background Paper, "Ground-Base Electro-Optical
Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) System" 1 Jun 79.
268. (C) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
Eastern Atlantic GEODSS Site, 10 Apr 79, 1 atch.
269. (U) Msg, HQ USAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: GEODSS Site
Survey Status, 2019307, Mar 757
270. (U) Msg, ADCOM to ESD L G Hanscom AFB MA et al, subj:
GEODSS Car Submission, 1520002 Jun 79.
271. (C) Msg, SecState to Amembassy Madrid et al, subj:
Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance,.
— -''. ■ System (GEODSS), UlSWKn 80.' • - -
272. (U) A collection of newspaper clippings regarding
Skylab. ' ' •'
273. (U) Msg, CISC NORAD to OSAF BASH DC et al, subj: NORAD
Decay Predictions for Skylab, 02233$rApr 79.
274. (U) Msg, NORAD COC to NASA et aL subj: Skylab' NORAD
Satellite Situation Report TNSSR) Nr.' 1, 05IS53ZAPR79.
275. (U) Msg, NORAD: to -CINCP1MT Noxfolk VA'efal, ; 'subj:
.Skylab NORAD Satellite Situation- Report~[NS5R) ■, 151750Z.
May 79.
276. (II) Msg, NOCC NASA GSFC Gr'eenbelt MD to NASA HQS Wash
DC et al , subj: Skylab Public Release Information No.
19, 121358Z Jul 79.
277. (S) Talking Paper, "10th AERODS-ADCOM Space Launch
Advocacy Focal Point (U) 26 Apr 78.
278. (S-NOFORN) Staff Summary Sheet to N/DO from Col John
». Vocum, Acting Asst DCS for Space Operations, subj:
NORAD Space Defense Relationships, 21 SEP 78.
(U) Ltr to Gen James E. Hill from Lt Gen Richard C.
Henry, no sub], 16 Jan 79,
(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XP from Maj Gen Bruce K.
Brown, DCS/Operations, stibjr Reply t'o ' SAMSO/CC Ltr, 16
Jan 79, 6 Feb 79.
(U) Ltr to Lt Gen Richard C. Henry from Gen Jams E.
Hill, no subj, 12 Mar 79.
(U) Msg, ADCOM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et al, subj: ADCOM
SSP/DMSP Launch Support, 261S55Z Apr 71
(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XPX et a)_ drafter Maj
Krasinski, subj: Revised Program Management Directive
for Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, 2 May 79.
(U) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et'al, subj: Program Manage-
ment Directive for Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program, 0320042 Hay 79.
(li) Interest Paper, "Issues Relating to the USAF Space
Support Program, Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro-
gram and the Tenth Aerospace Defense Squadron (10
AERODS)", 6 Jul 79.
(D) Interest Paper7 "Switch of DMSP from THOR to ATLAS
E/F Launch Vehicle", IS Aug 79.
(U) Staff Summary Sheet .to A/ AC et ai from Brig Gen
William E. lindeaan, DCS/Plans aiJ Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Switch of Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro-
gram (DMSP) from THOR to ATLAS, 15 Aug 79.
(S) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et. al, subj: Military Space
launch Capability (U), 172HOZ Aug 79.
(U) Ltr to Col John F. Fowler from Gen James E. Hill,
no subj, 25 Oct 79.
(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et a| from Brig Con
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Briefing-Transition of DMSP Satellites from Thor
to Atlas Boosters, 27 Nov 79.
(U) Ltr to Gen Alton D. Slay from Gen James E. Hill,
no subj, 5 Dec 79.
(S) Msg, ADCOM to AFSC Andrews AFB MD et al, subj:
ADCOM Addendum to USAF Site Survey 78-Z1 7JJ), 6 Feb 79.
(C) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Col Louis
I. Churchill, Acting- DCS/Plans''and"''Prbgrams, AtlCOM,
subj: STC II/SOC/GPS NCC Siting Criteria, 19 Jun 79, 1
atch.
(C) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
Willia.i E. Itiideian, DCS/Plans aH3 Programs, ADCOM,
subj: SAMSO Briefing on Consolidated Space Operations
Center, '. Jul 79, 1 atch.
(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO,et al from Brig Gen
William E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans ancT Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) (U),
13 Jul 79.
(C) Msg, CINCAD to AFSC Andrews AFB MD et al, subj:
(0) Consolidated Space Operations Center (C30C), 091S40Z
298. (C) Msg, CINCAD to CSAF Wash DC et al, subj: (U) Con-
solidated Space Operations Center, W2045Z Jul 79.
299. (C) Msg, HQ USAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: CSOC Site Sur-
vey (U), 2319407. Aug 79.
300. (U) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et al, subj: CSOC Site Sur-
vey (II), 301330Z Aug 79.
301. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
CSOC Site Survey (D), 14 Sep 79.
30Z. (C) Msg, CSAF to CINCAD et al, subj: Consolidated Space
Operations Center (CSOC) "Site Selection (U), 2820S5Z
Sep 79.
303. (S) Ltr to Gen leu Allen, Jr. from Gen Janes E. Hill,
no subj, 4 Oct 79.
304. (II) Msg, OSAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: CSOC/MORAD Pub-
lic Announcement, 2OZ0O0Z Dec 79.
305. (S) Ltr to All DCS's and Chiefs of Special Staff Ele-
ments ACOC/CC from Maj Gen Robert If. Fye, Chief of
Staff, subj: Implementation of SPADOC Phase One, 9 May
79, 1 atch.
506. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
filliam E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Status of SPADCCS/SPADOC, 31 Jan 79.
307. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et a]_ fro", Col Ifilliam
S. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subi;
Status of SPADCCS/SPADOC, 23 Feb 79.
308. (S) Memo to SecAF from Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen, Asst Sec
of Defense (C3l), subj: Space Defense Operations Cen-
ter (U), 1 Mar 79, 1 atch.
309. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/OI et_ al from Lt Col Hal-
ter N. Ague, Executive Officer, DCS/?lans and Programs,
subj: Auoroval of SPADOC Implementation Plan (U), 5
Apr 79."
310. (S) Memo to DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements
ACOC/CC from Maj Gen Robert If. Fye, Chief of Staff,
subj: Phase I SPADOC Activation Plan, 16 Jul 79, 1
atch.
311. (S) Ltr to HQ USAF/XOO from Brig Gen Killiait E. Linde-
man,' DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: Identification
of Interfacing Agencies, 13 Jul 79.
312. (5) Staff Summary Sheet to A/IS et aj_ from Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
SPADOC Team Visit to Wash DC Area, 26 Sep 79, 1 atch.
313. ■ (5) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et al, subj: PMD Direction
for SPADOC Interfaces {0), 1916502 Dec 79.
314. (S) Talking Paper, "ASAT System Development (U)", 29
Feb 80, 1 atch.
315. (S) Staff Sumnary Sheet to A/CS et al_ from Brig Gen
William E. Undeman, DCS/Plans an3 Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Space Defense Program Status (U), 2 Apr 79, 2
atchs.
316. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM, subj :
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 19 Jan 79.
317. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/PIans and" Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Space Defense System Program Status (0), 1 Mar
318. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et a]_ from Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 21 Mar 79.
319. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 20 Apr 79.
320. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO'et al froi Col William
R. Kenty, Asst OCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 16 May 79.
321. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col Louis
L. Churchill, Acting DCS/?lans and" Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Space Defense System Program Status [U), 20 Jun
(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
William E. Lindenaii, DCS/PIans and" Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Space Defense System Program Status, 39 Jul 79.
(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al_ from Brig Gen
William E. lindeman, DCS/PIans an? Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Executive Summary-Kigh Energy Laser Technology
Applications Study, 12 Jan 79,
(S) Background Paper, "The USAF Antisatellite iA.SAT)
325. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et Rl from Col Billia
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM 26 Sep
79, 1 atch.
326. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Col Killia
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Program's, ADCOM, subj'
Air Launch Miniature System Operational Concept, 3 l : e
79.
327. (S) Msg, ADCOM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et si_, subj: Proto-
type Miniature Air Launched Segment (PMALS) Limited
Operational Capability (LOC) (U), 4 Apr 79.
(S) Msg, A0COM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et. si, sub j ;
Prototype Miniature Air Launched Segment (PJWLS) Lim*
ited Operational Capability, 18 Apr 79.
(S) Msg, AFSC Andreas AFB MD to HQ IJSAF, subj: Space
Defense System Program Limited Operational Capability
(LOC)(U), 041135Z May 79.
(S) Msg, ADCOM to JCS hash DC, subj: Space Defense
System Program Limited Operational Capability (LOC)
(U), 25 May 79.
(S) Msg, ADCOM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et al, subj: Space
Defense Program User Concerns, 25 May 79.
(IJ) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et j2 - r<ra Col William
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj:
Space Systems Orientation Visit, 50-31 Jul 79, 23 Jul
79, 1 atch.
(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Brig Gen
William E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans aid" Prograias, ADCOM,
subj: Background Paper on ASAT Requirements Briefing,
30 Oct 79, 1 atch.
(S) Ltr to Admiral Daniel J. Murphy (Ret) from Gen
James E. Kill, no subj, i Dec 79..'
(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen
Killiaa E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM,
subj: Interpretation of ADCOM Mission, 13 Oct 73, 1
56. (U) Memo to ADCOM/XP from ADCOM DO, sub]: Interpreta-
tion of ADCOM Mission, 9 Soy 78, 1 atch.
37. (U) Memo to ADC0M/D0 et al from CC, subj: Interpreta-
tion of CINCAD Responsibility and Authority in the Area
of Satellite Survivability, 11 Jun 79.
.38. (U) interest Paper, "Summary of 15 SR JSS Transition
(II) Newspaper article, "JSS Implementation is Conti
ing on Schedule", The Defense Line , June 79.
(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/LG et al from Brig Gen
William E. Lindeman, DCs/Plans an! Programs, ADCOM,
subj: JSS Conversion Problem- 21st Air Division, 16 Jul
79, 1 atch.
342. (U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Inac-
tivation 780 8ADS, Fortuna AFS HI), March 79.
343. (0) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Acti-
vation OLAE, Finley City ND and Inactivation 785 RADS,
Finley AFS ND, April 79.
344. (U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (tl), sv-bj: Inac-
tivation 778 RADS, Havre AFS MT,' March 1979.
545. (U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Inac-
tivation 786 RADS, Minot AFS ND, March 1979.
(U) Msg, ADCOM to 23AD Duluth LAP MN et al, subj:
AD Transition to JSS, 1115152 May 79.
348. (FOUO) Talki„» Pi
JSS", 11 Sep 79,
(U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj:
tivation 755 RADS, Sault Sainte Marie AFS MI, Ju
ft!) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (II), subj: Act
vat ion Operating Location AC 23 ADS, .lashuauk City,
August 1979.
(U) Interest Paper, "JSS Actions Pertaining to 26AD"
(U) Msg ZONORAD Rgn Ft lee AFS VA to HQ ADCOM et al,
subj: Closure to Dauphin Island Sensor Facility,
20Z000Z Jul 79.
(U) Memo to ADCOM/XPAS et al from Col William H. Riley,
Director of Command § Control Systems, subj: Dauphin
Island, AL, Height Finder (HF) Radar and UHF Radios,
50 Jul 79.
(U) Memo to ADCOM/IGXP et al from ADCOM/XPAS, subj :
Dauphin Island ContractTlaintenance, 1 Aug 79, 1 atch.
(0) Msg, ADCOM to 20NR Ft Lee AFS VA et al, subj:
Closure to Dauphin Island Sensor Facility, YR 2020002
Jul 79; 241S0OZ AUG 79.
(IT) Msg, Defense Fuel Region SE Tyndall AFE FL to HQ
AFSC Andrews AFB MD et al, subj: Effects of Hurricane
Frederic on DFR-SE Resupply Capability, 191400ZSEP79.
(U) Msg, HQ ADCOM to 3246 Test Wing Eglin AFB et al,
subj: Emergency Priority Assistance for OLAE 678 ADG,
Dauphin Island, Al, 2022302 Sep 79,
(U) Msg, ZONORAD Rgn Ft Lee AFS VA to HQ ADCOM et al,
subi: Dauphin Island, Recovery from Hurricane Frederick,
201410Z Sep 79.
(II) Msg, CIHC80RAD to ZONORAD Rgn Ft Lee AFS VA et al,
subj: Dauphin Island, Recovery from Hurricane FreJeuck,
271800Z Sep 79.
564. .(FOUO) Msg, OSAF to ALMAJCOM et al, subj: Joint Sur-
veillance System/Region Operations Control, 2818301
Mar 79.
365. (S) Msg, CINCAD to AIG 951, subj: Commander ' s Semi-
Annual Summary 1 April-30 September 1979, Oct 79.
366. (Uj Memo to NORAD/XPA from Col William H. Riley/NORAD/
DOC, subj: Relocation of ROCCs, 28 Feb 79.
567. (U) Talking Paper, "SIS Region Operations Control Center
(R0CC), 16 Apr 79.
568. (I!) Memo to NORAD/DOC from Col ?rank R. Kisneski/NORAD/
XI'A, subj: Relocation of ROCCs, 2 Mar 79.
369. (U) Memo to NORAD/XPAS from Col William H. Riley/NORAD/
DOC, sub;: JSS/ROCC Site Designators, 5 Dec 79, 1 atch,
370. (U) Memo to 20 ADCOM Rgn/DO et al from DOC, subj: Joint
Surveillance System (JS3) Site Designators, 28 Mar 78,
1 atch.
371. (U) Msg, HQ AFTEC to HQ USAF et al_, subj: Over-the-
Horizon Experimental Radar System Test Schedule, 182131Z
Jan 79.
372. (U) Hsg, HQ AFTEC to HQ USAF et al, subj: Over-the-
Horizon Experimental Radar System Test Schedule, 022132Z
Feb 79.
373. (U) Hsg, HQ AFTEC to HQ ADCOM, subj: Initial Operational
Test and Evaluation (IOT6E) of the Over-the-Horizon
Backscatter Experimental Radar SysteB (ERS), 072O3OZ
May 79.
374. (U) Msg, HQ ADCOM to HQ ESD Hanscoo AFB MA et a2, subj:
Program Assessment Reviev for CONIIS OTH-B, Osy 79.
375. (U) Msg, HQ ESD Hanscom AFB MA to HQ AFTEC et al, Subj:
COSUS OTH-B Test Scheduled, 21191SZ May 79.
376. (tl) Msg, HQ AFTEC to USAF et al, subj: Over-the-Hori:on
Backscatter (OTH-B) Experimental Radar System (ERS)
IOT5E, 0620402 Jul 79.
377. (U) Msg, ESD Hanscom AFB MA to HQ ADCOM et al, subj:
CONUS OTH-B Radar Schedule, 061S002 Aug 79.
378. (S) Talking Paper, "CONUS Over-the-Horizon Backscatter
(OTHB) Radar System (U)", IS Mar 79.
379. (S) Msg, USAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: Postponement of
OTH-B Testing (U), Z01345Z Sep 79.
580. (U) Msg, ESD to HQ AFSC et al, subj: Postponeuent of
CONUS OTH-B Testing (Your Msg, 211742 Sep 79), 031900Z
Oct 79.
381. (U) Hsg, HQ AFTEC to ESD et a[, subj: Postponement of
CONUS OTH-B Testing, 1216522 Oct 79.
3S2. (S) Msg, USAF to AFSC et il, subj: Postponement of OTH-
B Testing (U), 0S1830Z Dec 79.
(U) Memo to ADCOM/ACB from Col John E. Perkins/ADCOM/
XPAS, subj : Seel Skyhook 05M Funding, 22 Jan 79, 1
atch.
(tl) Memo to Dot 1 SAMTK/70EP fro» XPAS, subj: AN/
FYQ-47 Maintenance Manning for Cudjoe Key AFS Fl,
24 Jan 79.
(U) Talking Paper, "Seek Skyhook {Aerostat-Borne Radar
System)", 15 Mar 79.
(S) Memo to ADCOM/XPAS from Col h'illiai H. Riley/ADCOM/
DOC, subj: Seek Skyhook Operational Need/Utility (il),
27 Jul 79.
(U) Msg, ADCOM to JCS Hash DC et al, subj: Radar Cov-
erage of Southern Approaches to CONOS your classified
JCS/J3 B11252Z Nov 79, Subj as above, 1323002 Nov 79.
(C) Msg, 20NORAD Rgn to HQ ADCOM et al, subj; Seek
Skyhook Project (li), 1419502 Dec 79.
(II) Msg, ADCOM to JCS Sash DC et al, subj: Seek Skyhook
(S) Msg, USAF to TAC Langley AFB VA et al, subj: E-3A
Planning Data (0), 202030Z Jul 79.
(S) Memo to ADCOM COC/DB from Maj Gen Bruce K. Brora/
DO, subj: Commander's Semiannual Summary (SITREP) (CS
ltr, 7 Mar 1979),' 50 Mar 79, 1 atch.
(U) Msg, HQ N0RAD to NDHQ Ottana CM et al, subj: SORAD/
ADCOM Digital Interface Svstem (SADIST Demonstration,
10 Dec 79, 191830Z Nov 79.
(U) Staff Summary Sheet to N/A XP et al from drafter:
Capt Magee, subj: SIORAD/ADCOM E-3A Communications Plan,
25 ApT 79.
(0) Memo to N0RAD/XPA from NORAD/DOC, subj: Statement
of Operational Need (SON) for NORAD/ADCOM E-SA Battle
Staff Enhancements (U) , 27 Apr 79.
(S) Msg, 25 N0RAD Rgn McChord AFB IfA to C1..JX0RAD, subj:
Comrander's SITREP Report (U) , 301915Z Apr 79.
(U) Ltr to Gen Kilbur L. Creech from Gen James E. Hill,
no subj, 30 Apr 79,
397. (S) Operational Evaluation Report of the ZSth NORAD
Region, 19-29 August 1979.
398. (S) Memo to (distribution list not attached) froa Col
R. It. Mortos/XPA, subj: Statement of Operational Need
(SON) for NORAD/ADCOM E-3A Battle Staff Enhanceaents
(ANCHOR CROWN) (U), 18 Oct 79.
(U) Msg, NORAD to TAC Langley AFB VA et al, subj:
NORAD E-3A Battle Staff Requirements, "o"61i00Z Jul 79.
(S) Memo to All ASCOH Rngs/CC et al from CS, subj:
What's Going On (II), 11 Sep 79.
(S) Msg, CINCAD to JCS Kash DC, subj: 17th DSES Deac-
tivation, 091930Z Jan 79.
of 17th DSES (S)"
(C) Msg, USAF to HQ ADCOM et al, subj: EB-57 Prograa-
aing and Training Requirements (If), 061950Z Feb 79.
(U) Msg, CINCAD to USAF et al, subj: Electronic Coun-
teraeasures Training for Interceptor Aircrews, 011S30Z
May 79.
(S) Msg, ADCOM to USAF et al, subj: EB-57 Tasking (U),
ZS2Z20Z May 79.
(S) Interest Paper, "EB-57 Oplan 4409", 27 Apr 79.
(U) Msg, ADCOM to USAF, subj: Request for DSEG Active
Duty Augmentation, 202000Z jun 79.
(U.) Msg, ADCOM to 24AD Malistrou AF6 MT, subj: Inacti-
vation of 17 DSES, 12 Sep 79.
(U) ADC Special Order, G- 133, 18 July 79.
(II) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Inac-
tivation 17 DSES Malmstroi AFB MT, May 1979.
413. (C) Msg, USAF to ADCOH, subj: £arly Closure of the 1?
Defensive System Evaluation Sq, (DSES) (U), 1620002
Apr 79.
414. (U) Msg, CINCAD to HQ USAF et al, subj: Permanent Dis-
play of EB-S7 Aircraft,. 2623T02 Apr 79.
415. (S) Msg, NORAD COC to AMCC Ft Ritchie MO et al, subj:
NORAD Force Summary as of 20 Dec 79, 2016251 Bee 79.
416. (II) ADC Movement Order MO-1, 1 Nov 78.
417. (S) Msg, HQ DA Bash DC to CDRFORSCOM Ft McPherson GA
et al, subj: Any CONUS and Alaska Air Defense (U),
042ST52 Jan 79.
418. (S) Memo to ADCOM/CS et al fr.om ADCOM/DO, subj: CONUS/
Alaska Air Defense (UJ7 17 Jan 79.
419. (S) Msg, HQ USAF to HQ ADCOM et al, subj: Removal of
ADA (U), 2718152 Jan 79.
420. (S) Msg, HQ AAC Elmendorf AFB AK to HQ USAF et al,
subj: Removal of ADA (U), 2S0S002Jan?9.
(S) Staff Summary- Sheet to N/CS et al_ from Maj Gen
Bruce K. Brown, DCS/Operations, subj: Removal of ADA
(U), 1 Feb 79.
■ COSUS and Alaska Air De-
424.. (S) Talking Paper, "ADA Loss in Florida", 13 Mar 79.
42S. (S) Memo for the Sec of Defense from Gen Bernard h'.
Rogers, Acting Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, subj:
Amy COSUS and Alaska Air Defense (U), 13 Feb 79, 1
(S) Memo for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff et
a[ from Deputy C. h'. Duncan, Sec of Defense, subj: Army
COSUS and Alaska Air Defense (U), 28 Mar 79.
(S) Msg, HQDA to CDRFORSCOM et al, subj: Arev COSUS 8
Alaska Air Defense (U), 022i5lTA> 79.
428. (U) Msg, JCS to CINCAD et al, subj: Amy CONUS/Alaska
ADA, 061542Z Apr 79. ~
129. (FOUO) Msg, CDRFORSCOM to CDR 31st ADA BDE et al, subj:
Amy COWS/Alasb. ADA, 092O12Z Apr 79. ■.
130. (0) Msg, CDR DSAMILPFRCEK Alex VA to AIG 9176 et al,
subj: Personnel on Orders to the 31st ADA BDE, Home-
stead, FL, 111000Z Apr 79,
431. (B) Msg, CINCNORAD to CDR 31st ADA BDE et al, subj:
Amy CONUS/Alaska ABA, 132157Z Apr 79.
432. (U) N/A Pamphlet 20-5, MAD, ADC, IS Mar 79.
133. (W) Msg, NO HQ OTTAWA to NDHQ/AU OTTASA et al, subj:
Posting Instruction CPCSA No 536, 201240Z Mar 78.
431. (U) Newspaper article, "Key Posts Change Hands at Head-
quarters" and "Colonel Lang dies suddenly; distinguished
career spanned 30 years". The Defense Line , Aug 79,
(ADCOM) Spe-
(S) Memo to All NORAD/ADCOM/ADC DCS and Chiefs of
Special Staff Elements fron CS, subj: Identification
of Parent Command (U), 25 Feb 80.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11