Handle via

Control System

1.••• 14 d. taamial. 41,14

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON

OppKm as r* AssisrANT SamirrAny 2 November 1965

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL WORTHMAN

REF: NRP Directive No. GMS-1

The following comments are forwarded per your request and reflect my

views on this subject.

My over-all impression is that this is a set of implementation instructions

for the Reorganization Agreement of 11 August 1965. I feel it is quite thorough and

comprehensive; however, upon close examination I form the opinion that it encourages

some interpretation which may or may not have been in the minds of the negotiators

during discussions which led to its final adoption. For example, paragraph 3 b.

states "The NRP normally is responsive directly and solely to intelligence requirements established by the United States Intelligence Board." The 11 August document

states "The National Reconnaissance Program shall be responsive directly and

solely to the intelligence collection requirements and priorities established by the

United States Intelligence Board." In the document under consideration I would then

ask for a clarification of the word "normally." Of equal importance is the second

sentence of the Agreement of 11 August which states that "Targeting requirements

and priorities and desired frequency of coverage of both satellite and manned aircraft missions over denied areas shall continue to be the responsibility of USIB .."

From my experience in this area this is where COMOR receives its charge to

monitor scheduling and other operational considerations at its weekly meeting. I

doubt that they will relinquish this without it going through the Board for its approval.

When evaluating paragraphs 4 a. and 3 a. against experience, I am reminded

of the Cuban situation in which it took Presidential decision to transfer over-flights

from CIA pilots to those of SAC. I now would question whether in a similar situation

the DCI would be willing to have this decision made by SECDEF.

Paragraph 5 d. - the term "designated Dod and CIA Program and/or

Project Directors, as appropriate, are responsible . . ." - the question here

centers around the word "designated." Who is the individual who does the designating:

and under what authority would this be carried out?

Under 7 b. I would feel it appropriate to quote a little more directly from

the Agreement of 11 August and would recommend in the third sentence it be changed

0417=L-of-A..._Coi

Page—L.—or-3—Po

Control No.L.f.S41rk

E) =D F2C.:4 1177:!";.—.7

DOD n7a. V.03.1O

1

Ti?? I SECTTT
EXCLUDED FROX

DOD DIT. 5230.10 

• OR...

I ) 111111

Randle V

as follows: **The DDNRO shall serve full time in a line position directly Mth!

DNRO and acts with full authority of the DNRO" and continue the sentence as it

presently appears.

In keeping with the 11 August Agreement I recommend the following change

to the second sentence of paragraph 7 c. "The Staff is jointly manned with full-time

CIA personnel, personnel from the three military departments of the DoD and other

government agencies as appropriate, serving a tour of duty . . ." I recommend

this change because it spells out in greater detail the 11 August Agreement and it '

provides for future expansion within the staff of liaison personnel. I am thinking,

for example, of someone from NASA that may be required in the future. I also

recommend a change in the last sentence on page 8 in one of two ways, either "The

Director, NRO Staff, is responsible to the DNRO/DDNRO for"; or "The Director,

NRO Staff, is responsible to his superiors for . . ." Either of these establishes

very clearly the position of the DDNRO and his relationship to the Director, NRO

Staff.

In paragraph 7 c (2) I question the use of the term "mission target programs,"

perhaps "appropriate camera programs" would be better. Targeting as such should

come from the Photo Working Group. I feel that the last sentence is superfluous

because direct communication links do not seem to be relevant at this time. My own

recommendation if the Satellite Operations Center should be introduced at this point

would be to state that "the Satellite Operations Center of the NRO Staff shall be

jointly manned, an extension of which should be located at the STC and should control

on-orbit operations of all satellites under control of the DNRO."

In paragraph 7 c. (3) in the last sentence I would request clarification of

the word "generally" when referring to the fact that flight plans are "generally"

left to the discretion of the project directors. I also would request clarification

from the 11 August Agreement for the DNRO's authority to become as involved in

aircraft operations as this NRP Directive implies.

Under paragraph 7 c. (4), while the idea appears to be a reasonable one,

I would like to advise that before it could be properly implemented it might be

necessary to have USIB document 41.5/12 (COMOR-D-57/2), dated 13 August 1962,

updated to reflect this thought.

Paragraph 7 c. (7) - I would ask why we limit ourselves to processing and

production of photographic and image-forming sensor products of the NRP - why not

include ELINT/SIGINT? At this time numbers of copies are handled through the

COMOR and it is doubtful that they will relinquish this role. Also so far as processing

is concerned, SAC U-2 and drones flying in Southeast Asia it is often the field

commanders who make a determination of the processing facilities to be used.

Top_pavvg._

b . Contra 1/0.3a--10.1.4.
NRO Staff

Handle via

entra

Under tactical situations I doubt whether time would permit all the consultation

Sp

implied in this paragraph.

In reference to 7 e. the big question that remains after studying

this paragraph is how to be managed in keeping with the intent of this

document? I do not find it in this paragraph. In addition I doubt that the parenthetical phrase in the second sentence is important since the NRO, acting as a

separate operating agency of the DoD, should have authority to command and control

any appropriate element.

In paragraph 7 e. (2) I am unable to find any reference to the readout huts

used in ELINT/SIGINT program. In fact I was surprised throughout the document

to see no reference to the Navy's role in the NRP or how the present facilities of

Program Director C are to be utilized after implementation of this document.

Under 7 e. (3) for whom are the space-oriented study, research and

technology programs conducted? I notice the same comment under the CIA

Reconnaissance Programs Office in paragraph 7 g. (2).

Paragraph 7 g. introductory paragraph, second sentence, states "This

office is manned with CIA employees and DoD personnel assigned to the CIA." I

am of the opinion that this statement is incorrect. The CIA regards DoD personnel

detailed to them as CIA employees because it is my understanding that the CIA

re-imburses the DoD for the military pay, travel, and per diem of personnel

assigned to the Agency from the DoD.

Under 7 g. (1) I would request clarification of the paragraph wherein it

refers to "operation of assigned aircraft and satellite projects."

Paragraph 8 b. does not seem to reflect the change in attitude that everyone

has been asked to develop. I thouglt it was this type of philosophy that created

problems in the past and are hardly appropriate in a document designed to develop

a feeling of nationalism in the conduct of the NRP. I feel the same comment could

also be applied to paragraph 8 d.

Paragraph 9 b. - In keeping with the 11 August Agreement of joint manning

for the SOC and joint staffing for the remainder of the organization, I feel a more

national tone would be developed within the organization if the communication

facility located in the Pentagon would have perionnel assigned from all of the

participating organizations rather than restricting it to the Air Force Communications

Service.

_ _ . . F.1.717.).:ITG;

• r.7.-

T. m.o.. dr" w•••••n•nn ••••n• •••n• ••••n•MOIM•••••••nnn•••n•n•••n•••n•••11411•••••nn•n••••n•••••n• TOP SECHT

Pate of.p2.---..Pai

jeontrol