• RELEASE 1 JULY 201 ! 710PliGHT4 

NRCYARRROVED FOR: , BYtMAN COQ , sysccse 

, . • 

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE • • OP FiCE 

• -' • , • • •- WASH IN GT ON, D. 

. . SUBJECT t Unmanned DORXAN System Stu'die . 

, .. .. .. th

1. ' You will recall that Dr. Pester requested th at • • , 

of to UM/DORIAN vs an unmanne0:!.DORT.ANtype system be 

•"i-, for DDR&E review by June 6••,(TablA) 4: ii'o!:-;•;:f':', -,••- . ,-.... i ' ; : . 

2. .. You and Gen Schriever th... O Aare_ aChe..duled to review t 

.. 

results of the contractor studies, -':: SAPSP:;:ini•honse 'studies'sSPO inputs, eta, in Los Angeles::OhjUne;•

-

 

7.:ri:. At the same time 

AI expect to present at leaSt,:thepreliminary..results of the . 

i11110 Staff's analysis of tWiredicteCtergeticoVeragereinliS 

of •the manned vs unmanned 140/0014.6N. ;agaittst a 30 day period 

of actual recorded weather , ,:'f:';.,.1 -i• ':.t'.:'',I4 '!,', :•, ''7 ' ' '.:1 v ' .. :* ' ' 

;','• • ; 

• 3, The KOZ. Policy Council review of the same Subject 

tentatively Ts scheduled fo_ June 9. : Gen Evans and I were c 

cerned that this was too soon. afte::: 'the West Coast review: 

•However, Gen Schriever apparently tvould have personal schedule 

problems with an VIOL Policy Council review the following week 

t•:,; and requests that the Policy Council meet as scheduled, even', 

the material presented is not yet ...n polished form. X reaoinien 

the Policy Council meeting scheduled for 'June 9 be adhered 

• possible. 

to DDR&E by 

- • . • 

Atehs 

LORIAN 

• - „ A 

4.,However, the material presented to DDRfg mush be polishe 

41114complete, and I recommend at leastaT,4eek.be allocated for 

purpose.. :"AcOordinglyi; 'attached is a 'memo,110'7,,our signa 

to Dr.. o Pste indicating-that-the effort is taking a little ry 

longer than anticipated,. and estimating 'sub. inittal;tif the 'ref:late :• 

ames T. Stewart 

Bridie General ,L US 

iraatori NRD Staff 135 s-v1 

.ior. SECRE 

. excloo Vs :num AMU..AlIC itEG*404 

" boo olitEcievc lit °DA 0 bolt Hot APPLV 

1, II, IiI IT., 

:-•e•01,4 `.,•••••• c*Plis 

• : 62C 71:71-! . 

i 11 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301 

6oft 1966 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (R&D) 

SUBJECT: MOL versus an Equivalent Wholly Unmanned System Development 

and Mission Comparison Study 

 The Director, Bureau of the Budget, in his letter to the Secretary of 

 Defense of March 21, 1966, requested that the Air Force study the 

 comparative development and operational costs and differences in 

 operational effectiveness of performing the MOL reconnaissance- 

 intelligence mission unmanned versus manned. 

 The Secretary's response of March 25, 1966, to this request stated 

 that we had a study under way which would provide the estimates 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 developing a system and performing 

 the mission wholly unmanned as opposed to our current MOL concept. 

 I sin convinced that such a comparative study is meaningful only if the 

 development cost and the mature system operating costs of the two 

approaches are viewed as separate entities and not as an outgrowth of 

one from the other. 

 I desire that as a minimum, the study cover the following comparative 

 points: 

1. Configure the wholly unmanned system and its method of 

operation to provide the same quality and quantity of reconnaissanceintelligence information as the MOL. 

11•1■111I■ 

2. Assess the difficulties and risks of obtaining equal 

intelligence content with the wholly unmanned system and 

determine the development and operating costs to achieve it. 

as 3. Compare the wholly unmanned system performance with the 

CO expected performance of the unmanned version of the MOL as evolved 

Ls-% from the manned development flights. 

oc, 

BYE -5 188-66 

WEE VIA iEmAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

GROUP T 

Excluded from automat 

downgrading 

and declassification 

__14......ccrigs 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

6 PO 966 

2 

4. A comparison should be drawn between the operational 

effectiveness of the two approaches with regard to the number of 

missions required to insure equal target coverage (objectives 

seen per day, per week, per month) and the ability to select 

and/or discriminate between target systems. This should also 

include an assessment of the mannedand unmanned system ability 

to circumvent weather phenomena in locating and identifying 

targets of interest. 

It is therefore requested that the Air Force introduce into its study 

effort the points I have outlined. The results of the study should 

be made available for DIME review no later than 6 June 1966. 

""4. 

o S. Foster, Jr. 

PAE:LE Ele 7 ; 

CaTillt. SYSTEM 

BYE-5188-66 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 ' 

• — TUrtItttrei"•""!: -. 

1111.t"" "rit:::41,11:: 

.7,11,731 50,1111 

49t NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C: 

• 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 

MWORANDUM FOR Director of Defense Research. & Engineering 

suBJEV: Ent; vs an Equivalent Wholly 'llumarined System bey.Oio 

;Lent and Mission Cc . Study 

Reference is made to your memormi'dum. of April 6 on the 

above subject which requested that the 'results. thestudy 

: should be made available .for DD1E airieF:tici later than juile 6*1 1966. 

T. The studies and analyser: r tzing a little : more time t 

anticipated. . I now estimate the, 

DDR&E reviewby June ' .17 1966 

t:_";1.. • 

.k. 

• . . 

MAMMA VIA " • 

.:111111117 

: TO :66.176E0 •FAO..4 AEGRADING.: 

;•_:,'Doti :01PECTIV 4(51" .6 0007.: