4 it FROA1fetD FOR 

fRELEA

7

31.JLY 2015.: 

7070036Z 

BT 

xxxx 

EIGHT THREE NINE 

1.1.1 

0700332 151 

PRIORITY CITE WHIG 50517 

DORIAN. sEctp. tt- 

,• 

FOR GEN BERG FROM GEN EVANS. 

SUBJECT: COmPARIsoN OF mOL WITH AN EQUIVALENT WHOLLY UNMANNED SYSTEM. 

THIS MESSAGE IN TWO PARTS. PART I. AS A RESULT OF RECENT COMMUNICATION. 

FROM THEBuREAu OF THE BUDGET, THE,DIFECTOR OF DEFENSE - 

RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING HAS REQUESTED THAT COMPARATIVE 

STUDY BE PREFORMED. FOR YOUR INFORMATION A COPY OF A MEMORANDUM 

FROM DR. FOSTER TO OR. FLAX. SIGNED APRIL 6 1966, IS HEREWITH : 

TRANSMITTED. THIS MESSAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DIRECTIVE. 

PART I I COPY OF MEMO( "THE D !RECTOR , BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, . 

IN HIS LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF MARCH 210966, 

REQUESTED THAT THE AIR FORCE STUDY THE COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT 

AND OPERATIONAL COSTS AND DIFFERENCES IN OPERATIONAL EFFECT! VENE SS 

OF PREFOR M I NG THE MOL RECONNA I SSANCE..I NULL 1 GENCE MISSION UNMANNED' 

VERSUS MANNED. THE SECRETARY'S RESPONSE. OF MARCH 25, . 1966, TO 

THIS REQUEST STATED THAT WE HAD A STUDY UNDER WAY WHI CH WOULD PROV IDE 

THE EST IMATES .OF MANNED VERSUS UNMANNED. DEVELOPMENT COSTS AS WELL 

AS THE COMPARATIVE OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS- OF EACH APPROACH. 

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT SUCH A STUDY 'BE RESPONSIVE.TO OUR NEEDS FOR - 

INFORMATION TO ASSESS THE WORTH OF DEVELOP 1NG A SYSTEM AND 

PERFORMING THE MISSION WHOLLY UNMANNED AS OPPOSED TO OUR 

CURRENT MOL CONCEPT. 1 AM CONVINCED . THAT =SUCH A COMPARAT I VC STUDY 

IS !CAM NGFUL ONLY IF THE DEVELOPMENT COST AV THE MATURE SYSTEM 

OPERATING COSTS. OF THE TWO APPROACHES ARE "V !EWE() AS SEPARATE ENT I TIES . AND 

AS AN OUTGROWTH OF ONE FROM THE. OTHER. 4.DESIRE THAT AS A MI N I T 

STUDY COVER THE FOLLOWING COMPARATIVE POINTS. t1) CONFIGURE 

THE WHOLLY UNMANNED SYSTEM AND .17V'METHOD OF OPERATION TO PROM 

THE SAME QUAL I TY AND QUANT momuffi tSANCE...1 NULL I CENCE::::". 

INFORMATION AS THE MOL. (2) :ASSESS'-.THE,' DIFFICULTIES AND: 

OBTAINING EQUALINTELLIGENCE: CONTEHTlITH THE WHOLLY UNMANNED 

SYSTEM AND DETERMINE THE DEVELOPMENT , ..1,,ND:'-OPERAT I NG COSTS. 40 ; 

ACHIEVE IT. (3) COMPARE THE WHOLLY if tamAtop Sony pcRagmAucE. 

, t',, rn -4.1 (10. c

tiz rj:t 
;;. 

OAPPVi FOR 

LtASE LY 2015 

' r•-• 

THE EXPECTED PERFORMANCE OF ifi: u-Ti•Afik0 VERSION OF THE MOL AS EVOLVED 

FROM THE MANNED DEVELOPMENT FLIGHIS‘' (i ) A COMPARISON SHOULD BE DRAWN 

BETWEEN THE OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVDZ.SS• iF THE TWO APPROACHES WITH 

REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF MISSIONS REQUVED TO INSURE EQUAL TARGET 

• COVERAGE (OBJECTIVES SEEN PER DAY* PER WEEK, PER MONTH) AND THE : .j;, ---".. 

ABILITY TO SELECT AND/OR DISCRIMIKATE BETWEEN TARGET SYSTEMS. '.; ‘... 

THIS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE AN ASSZVMENT OF THE MANNED AND UNMANNED it , 

• SYSTEM ABILITY TO CIRCUMVENT WEATHER PHENOMENA IN LOCATING AND -,-, 

IDENTIFYING TARGETS OF INTEREST* IT THEREFORE REQUESTED . 

THAT THE AIR FORCE INTRODUCE INTO ITS STUDY EFFORT THE POINTS. ,1 • 

HAVE OUTLINED. THE RESULTS Of THE STUDYSHOULD• BE MADE 'AVAILABLE 

FOR DDR&E REVIEW NO LATER THAN :::S ,-..1t)It:'19,064°. 

TOPSECRET 

.. , 

CFNtWILL RERUN-IF- REQUESTED 

BT 

:: : , t .• - --:- ,;,:. 

.i'''. 

.. ....• .:: :f . 

• , 

?,i::,.. : 

. 1