Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1562937
label
Defense - Enforcer Close Air Support Aircraft
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1562937
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Defense - Enforcer Close Air Support Aircraft
citationUrl
collections
John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)
John Marsh's General Subject Files
subjects
Military aircraft
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1562937
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-10-31
month
10
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-05-01
month
5
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
53547e9f44c84306
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 11, folder "Defense - Enforcer Close Air
Support Aircraft" of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 11 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, ARK., CHAIRMAN
WAR EN G. MAGNOSON, WASH.
MILTON R. YOUNG, N. DAK.
JO IN c. STENNIS, MISS.
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR.
JOHN . CASTORE, R.I.
NORRIS COTTON, N.H.
ALAN RIBLE, NEV.
CLITORD P. CASE. N.I.
LOBER T c. BYRD, W. VA,
HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII
GALE W. MCGEE, WYO.
EDWARD W. BROOKE, MASS.
MIKE MANSFIELD, MONT.
MARK O. HATFIELD, OREG.
Mailed States Senale
WILLIAM PROXMIRE. WIS.
TED STEVENS, ALASKA
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, N. MEX.
CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., MD.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INJUYE. HAWAII
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA.
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C.
HENRY BELLMON, OKLA.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
BIRCH BAYH, IND.
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, MO.
LAWTON CHILES, FLA.
JAMES R. CALLOWAY
July 19, 1974
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable James R. Schlesinger
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D. C. 20301
Dear Mr. Sècretary:
You have recently asked for the cooperation of Congress
in holding down excess defense costs. As Members of the Senate
intensely interested not only in economy but also military effectiveness,
we strongly recommend that you personally initiate action to test
fly the Enforcer close air support aircraft.
It is our belief that the Enforcer promises such an
attractive combination of economy and effectiveness that it should
not be cast aside by Service biases.
We are well aware of the current viewpoint in the Air
Force that they see no role for the Enforcer considering pro, ected
aircraft inventories. With limited force levels ano current
commitments to favored programs, that reaction is not unexpected.
It could be dangerously parochial, however, if it perpetuates
an attitude of inflexibility to promising developments.
The Enforcer has impressive credentials. Secretary Clements
and Dr. Currie agree that the Enforcer meets its claimed performance
levels and that cost estimates are near the mark. Given that and
the evaluation conducted by the Naval Air Systems Command, how can
we afford not to take the final step and flight test this aircraft?
If it can be produced for under $1 million per unit,
it can operate effectively in a tank dominated battiefield, if it
can fly from unimproved fields with substantial range and oronance,
then the Defense Department would be seriously remiss if this
weapon system were not given a fair and Impartial flight test.
You have authority to transfer certain Department of Defense
Appropriations under Section 735 of the FY 1974 Defense Appropriations
Bill, subject to prior approval and the reprogramming process. We
urge you to consider using this authority or other means to validate
contractor claims and pinpoint potential applications.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The Honorable James R. Schlesinger
July 19, 1974
Page 2
Mr. Secretary, your careful consideration of this matter
and a report back on your decision will be appreciated. Both leaders
of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Stennis and Congressman Hebert,
have stated they would support a funding request.
Sincerely,
Itom Strom Thurmond Thur and, U.S.S. William Proxmire, U.S.S.
Thomas Mclmare U.S.S. John Town John Tower, U.S.S.
Henry M. Jackson, U.S.S.
FORD is LIBRARY
Maury, Hon. John M.
F: "Enforcer" folder
October 16, 1974
Honorable John H. Mary
Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Legislative Affairs)
Department of Defense
Washington, D. C. 20301
Dear Mr. Secretary:
This is to confirm Mr. Anthony R. Bottista's verbal
request to the Services to initiate the requirements
study delineated in the attached memorandum. I trust that
you will coordinate this request with the three Services
and the Office of the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering.
Please note the Comittee's request for the study
results ly November 15, 1974.
Sincerely,
Frank M. Slatinshek
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
FORD & LIBRARY 07V839
October 16, 1974
MEMORANDUM TOR: Mr. Frank M. Slatinshek, Chief Counsel
FROM: Mr. Anthony R. Pattista, Professional Staff Member
Subject: Enforcer aircraft
August
On October 8, 1974 the Research and Development Subccrittee
received a briefing on the Enforcer circraft from Mr. David B. Lindary,
its designer and developer. The major considerations that emanated
from the briefing were:
(1) The Enforcer circraft is not a competitor to the A-10 but
is considered by Mr. Lindsay to be a valuable supplement to the A-10
in a high-low nix environment.
(2) Several deficiencies In the Enforcer aircraft that were
delineated during the Pave Coin evaluation have cither been corrected
or have received adoquate consideration for correction.
(3) There is every reason to believe, based upon previous
Department of Defense studies, that the performance parameters of the
Enforcer circraft are in accordance with Mr. Lindsay's claims and
expectations.
Concurrent with this briefing, General David C. Jones; Chief of
Staff, U.S. Air Force, informed Mr. Lindsay by letter that General
Stewert would assemble sa evaluation team to review the Air Force
requirements for such an aircraft. Since that time, the Air Force
has informed Chairman Trice and the that progress was being made in
this evaluation. This MOG confirmed by Mr. Bloward SLUS, a repre-
sentative of Mr. Mirisay.
C:1 October 3, the Subscr littee net inform ally to discuss the
status of the evaluation and to decide what, if any, action would be
tolon. Several Members indicated their desire to have the require-
ments for on circraft such as the Enforcer studied on a tri-scrvice
basis. Chrineen Price concurred and directed :.e to request each of
FORD i 076830 LIBRARY
- 2 $0
the Services to ascess their requirements for an aircraft with a
performance envelope similar to that of the Enforcer. Further, the
tri-services must review and reaffirm or refute the conclusions of
the Close Air Support studies of 1971 that were conducted by the
Department of Defense.
In accordance with Chairman Price's request, I have informed the
following people to provide the results of their requirements study to
the Subcornittee by November 15, 1974:
Captain R. T. Manning (Navy OLA) ;
Lt. Colonel Robert ?. St. Louis (Army OLA) :
Colcasl Dorrall D. Whitsher (Air Force OTA) : and
Captain is. V. Townsend, USN (Assistant Director, Air Worfare, DORGE).
Anthony R. Inttista
Professional Staff Member
FORD i LIBRAR GERALD
Aerospace Daily
1156 15th STREET, N. W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
Telex 89-2447
202-293-3400
William D. Hall, Editor
Richard Tuttle, Managing Editor
James E. Skinner, News Director
Published daily except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays in Washington by The Ziff-Davis Publishing Company.
Hershel B. Sarbin, Senior Vice President and Publishing Director. Wesley First, General Editor.
SUBSCRIPTION RATE: One year $425, 6 months $255. Quantity rates on request.
COPYRIGHT 1974 ZIFF-DAVIS PUBLISHING CO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Vol. 69, No. 27
Wednesday, October 9, 1974
Page 209
PENTAGON TO REPORT TO HOUSE UNIT ON TRI-SERVICE NEED FOR ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
The Pentagon is to report after the November elections to the House Armed Services R&D
subcommittee on Army, Navy/Marine and Air Force requirements for the Enforcer aircraft, a turbo-
prop plane based on the North American Mustang fighter.
The review is being conducted at the request of the House unit, which apparently has
felt that an Air Force-only study of the Enforcer might not be broad enough. The unit met infor-
mally late last week.
The Air Force has been taking a fresh look at the Enforcer since this summer, when the
House Armed Services R&D group determined in a hearing that it is not a competitor for the Fair-
child Republic A-10, and that it can do everything its designer and backer, pilot/editor David B.
Lindsay of Sarasota, Fla., says it can.
The Air Force, following the request of Rep. Melvin Price (D-III), chairman of the House
unit, and on orders from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Jones, assembled a highly competent
team of observers and technicians to restudy the aircraft, which Air Force officials earlier said was
not suitable for AF missions.
Lindsay and representatives of the team will meet today in Atlanta to discuss the team's
findings. Involved in the Enforcer program is Lockheed-Georgia, which would produce the plane
for U.S. and offshore markets if it is approved.
The Air Force study will be passed on to the House R&D unit, which will compare it to the
broader Pentagon tri-service evaluation. Sources said the six-week period that the Pentagon has
to prepare an Enforcer requirements study is not too short, since the aircraft has been evaluated
before, notably in the Air Force's Pave Coin program several years ago.
On the strength of the August 8 House Armed Services R&D subcommittee Enforcer hearing,
at which Lindsay testified, three members of the group indicated that they would have no objec-
tion to joining five senators in urging Defense Secretary James Schlesinger to reprogram funds for
flight testing of the aircraft. They are Reps. William Dickinson (R-Ala.), Richard Ichord (D-Mo.),
and Floyd Spence (R-S.C.).
The five senators backing Enforcer flight testing are: William Proxmire (D-Wis.), vice
chairman of the Joint Economic Committee; Henry M. Jackson (D-Wash.), a member of the Armed
Services Committee; Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), ranking minority member of the Armed Services
Committee, and Thomas McIntyre (D-N.H.), chairman of the Armed Services R&D subcommittee.
Meanwhile, Air Force tests have confirmed the Enforcer's capability to use the Hughes
Maverick missile and to carry the Maverick cockpit display used in the A-10. It also can use the
Elliott-Marconi head-up display used by the McDonnell Douglas A-4M, and has been proven com-
patible with the Stencel ejection seat, although the "Yankee" model now in use is adequate.
Tests with wing-tip mounted 106 mm recoilless rifles have been terminated for reasons
that were unclear at presstime yesterday.
*
FORD is GIVE LIE
lay
6,
ry
6,
1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
7067
In short, the degree to which rural de-
"lobby," the glamor is wearing thin. The
Many
Number of
evelop
loans
velopment makes its contribution -to
best example is the growing concern of many
Amount
W.
quality living depends upon the determi-
Senators and Congressmen over the
water
sy:
nation of rural people to mold the des-
Force's continued blocking of a flight test
for sucl loans (mostly ownership and
of a promising. privately-developed close-
Trerating
loans)
7,764 $60,021,000
tiny of their surroundings.
from
support aircraft, which costs only a fourth
housing
loans
(mostly
in-
Not only does Alabama come first in
administe
housing)
27,181 260,462,000
what the A-10 will cost.
munity facilities (mostly sewer
the alphabetical listing of the 50 States—
To date, quite a bi-partisan array of Sen-
di water systems)
267 37,529,000
it comes first in many tangible ways. One
ators and Congressmen have asked Deputy
and
Tut
of them is rural development. You-all
Secretary of Defense William Clements to
prominent has madn addition to these loans. we have
of us-may be proud of our State and our
order a flight test of the Enforcer. The Air
to admiti help from EPA, the Small Business
heritage, glad for our accomplishments,
Force has managed, thus for, to block
humble about our leadership. and full of
action. One reason may be this is the very
been ministration, HUD, and other Federal
weapon It should have equipped South Viet-
faith in our great future. We have a
nam's Air Force with, and didn't. Some feel
received.ncies.
from)f course, this sounds all well and
brand of Americans-the natural re-
the Air Force's failure to Vietnamize the
sources-the transportation advan-
air war is a scandal, a failure to carry out
Iopment Ad. But we have a long ways to go.
Senateke community sewer and water sys-
tages-the political leadership-the tra-
the President's orders.
ditions, experiences, and patterns to take
Senators Strom Thurmond (R-SC), John
Forestms. A 1969 FHA survey indicated that
togethebama had 326 communities without.
our place among the stars.
Tower (R-Tex). Henry Jackson (D-Wash),
This type of leadership was recognized
Thomas McIntyre (D-NH), John Stennis
cularly pre needing. a central water system and
(D-Miss). Sam Nunn (D-Ga), Lawton Chiles
for Alai needing a central Avstom. Ad-
by USDA when it awarded last year to
(D-Fla). plus Congressmen Bob Sikes (D-
assistancionally, the survey indicated 194 of
the Alabama-USDA Rural Development
Flat, Floyd Spence (R-SC). Bill Young
been usec State's communities with central wa-
Council-its Superior Service Award. The
(R-Fla). Charles Bennett (D-Fla). Melvin
citation mentioned:
he act has systems needed to improve or expand
Price (D-III). Bryan Dorn (D-SC), Jim Ha-
For effective leadership in helping rural
ley (D-Fla), Edward Hébert (D-La), George
coordinse systems. And that 68 existing sewer
people of Alabama organize, define local
Mahon (D-Tex) have all pushed or queried
capacity items needed improving or expanding.
problems, determine priorities and program
the Defense Department on the Enforcer
Establishndications are that the turnaround
structures. and carry out a balanced program
flight test question.
Secretant got underway in Alabama several
to improve their quality of living.
The Air Force has skillfully blocked every
Erwin, airs ago is becoming a national growth
attempt to give the privately-fnanced air-
And, last but not least, we may take
craft that test. In addition. it has kept
timitern.
pride in our capacity to produce champ-
top defense officials ignorant of the real cost
by mass migration of rural people
ionship football teams.
of the A-10. A year ago an Air Force general
urban centers in search of employ-
told Clements (then new in his job) the Air
commnt is slowing. Rural job opportunities,
Force wouldn't buy any A-10's If they cost
pment. Alecially in manufacturing. are increas-
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
over $1.5 million. As late as late April Clem-
These in faster than urban job opportunities.
ents still was telling Congress the A-10
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. a'
systemisiness leaders are increasingly ex-
would cost $2.5 million! It was common
number of Members of Congress have
parks, hording their countryside installations of
knowledge at that time the cost is likely to
from nts, offices, laboratories, and distrib-
expressed an interest in a flight test of
be $4 million. (Clements had apparently
the taxing facilities. Urban areas are expand-
a privately developed aircraft designed
been misled and misinformed. as had many
made in their efforts to limit further growth.
tn provide close air support for ground
in Congress).
troops.
Now. however. Chairman George Mahon.
Isewhere. rveys show that country living is pre-
of the House Appropriations Committee. has
This aircraft. known as the Enforcer.
of rurared by twice as many people as cur-
moved to have his Defense Subcommittee
may or may not have an application for
sectatly live there. And farmers and other
look into the situation: Congress. at least.
United States or allied forces. but it is
is going to get the facts about the Enforcer.
techniqueal people have found that family scat-
the view of many that such application
will be inding because of a dearth of local jobs,
cannot be determined without a flight
rantees. Tomething that they would like to pre-
test.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF SENA-
dent wherever possible.
Chairman GEORGE MAHON, of the
TOR J. GLENN BEALL. JR.
private lenne top priority of rural development
House Appropriations Defense Subcom-
loss bsa prosperous agriculture. We have
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President. in keeping
mittee, has invited the developer of the
enthus de good progress in this area. Realized
with my usual practice. I am submitting
Enforcer to testify before the subcom-
helping P, farm income in 1973 was around S26
a copy of my financial statement for 1973.
mittee this month. Hopefully this testi-
great pote'ion-up from $14.9 billion in 1963.
mony will further justify the desirability
I ask unanimous consent that the
for profire important, we have created policies
of a flight test.
statement be printed in the RECORD.
And this international relationships which
An editorial reference the interest in
There being no objection. the financial
time laste made it possible for U.S. farmers
the Enforcer being accorded such a test
statement was ordered to be printed in
ground in take advantage of their comparative
appeared in the April 29, 1974, issue of
the RECORD, as follows:
duction efficiency by expanding ex-
the Hartsville Messenger.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT-SENATOR J. GLENN
commits and thereby contribution to our
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
BEALL, JR.-DECEMBER 31, 1973
fromal national well-being, including the
sent that this editorial be printed in the
ASSETS
$424 millicsuit of peace.
RECORD.
Cash in bank:
$520 m: am hesitant to give the rural devel-
There being no objection. the editorial
Checking accounts
$8,535.73
housing hent movement equal importance to
Savings accounts
12,201.51
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
million preservation and enhancement of the
as follows:
20,737.24
is fundeily-type farm. But next to the
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
Stocks and bonds (see list at-
this year.aily-type farm objective, one can
WASHINGTON. D.C.-For years the Air Force
tached, Appendix A)
190,554.53
electricke a strong case for helping people
has enjoyed great influence on Capitol Hill.
Life Insurance-cash surrender
to $6181d better their small towns and rural
The Air Forces has accommodated legisla-
value
19,909.20
farmers inntryside. The future of self-govern-
tors with jet flights and special attention.
Beall. Garner & Geare, Inc. Re-
$1,432 miht and the evolution of quality in
The Air Force has had the most advanced,
tirement Trust (vested inter-
itee repayrerican life are tied to it. There is one
or exotic weapons; it has often received the
est)
30,816.67
lenders, itnent of major urgency that I would
largest slice of the defense budget.
But in recent years Congress has too often
Real estate:
tee repayr to again mention. Countryside de-
been misled. Our best fighter is much slower
Beall's Lane, Prostburg, Md
50,000.00
ctric and pment should be guided. Experience
than the Russian Foxbat. There are ques-
Western Avenue, Chevy Chase,
scal year 1 taught us that haphazard, topsy-like
tions about the new B-1 bomber. There are
Md
80,000.00
DS becomeelopment often creates unsatisfactory
strong doubts about the A-10, a so-called
ers Home blems that are irreversible. My point:
close support aircraft built around a new
130,000.00
FORD
rural deventry people stand challenged to pre-
gun, as yet unproved in sustained use. (Hun-
is and grit this type of development from de-
dreds of millions of the taxpayers' money
Personal property
20,000.00
have already been spent on it.)
1972 Chrysler 4 door sedan
2,500.00
credit tting from the potential benefits of
Congress is beginning to react. Despite all
Alabama 1974, it h development.
the favors and attention of the Air Force
Total
382,708.80
May 30, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
9271
peace that can last for generations to
lightweight, low-cost aircraft designed
made. If this step is not taken, the in-
and built by a private individual which
ference must be drawn that the Penta-
come. Yesterday's announcement that Syria
appears to fit the requirements for a new
gon is unable or unwilling to explore
op-
and Israel agreed to a cease-fire and a
close-support aircraft.
ways for reducing weapons costs.
disengagement of forces on the Golan
The story of the new aircraft, called
I ask unanimous consent to print the
re-
Heights, coupled with the Egyptian-
the Enforcer, is detailed on the front
article from the Wall Street Journal,
11:0
Israeli disengagement agreement
page of today's Wall Street Journal.
May 30, 1974, by Richard J. Levine, en-
lies
reached several months ago, now paves
According to the Journal, the Enforcer
titled "An Attack Aircraft That's Cheap,
the way for achieving a permanent peace
can land and take off from short, rough
Good Gets Cold Shoulder" in the
settlement in the Middle East.
runways, can stay in the air for long
RECORD.
ites
I:
Ever since President Nixon took office,
periods, and carries six .50-caliber ma-
There being no objection, the article
us
he has worked ceaselessly to improve
chineguns and 10 rockets, missiles, or
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
nge
the international climate in order to
bombs. Its performance characteristics
as follows:
:ap
make it more receptive to his efforts in
dovetail neatly with the requirements for
[From the Wall Street Journal, May 30, 1974]
ut-
behalf of peace for all people.
a close-support aircraft.
AN ATTACK AIRCRAFT THAT'S CHEAP, Good
are
To his great credit, the President has
The Pentagon is now in the process of
GETS COLD SHOULDER-PROTOTYPE SITS IN.
ar-
ate:
contributed to mankind's quest for a
deciding which of two candidates to
STORAGE, IGNORED BY THE PENTAGON; THREAT
IS
more stable and peaceful world by:
select for the close-support aircraft role.
TO PET PROJECTS?
ort
Ending America's long and costly in-
In the running so far are the Harrier
(By Richard J. Levine)
volvement in the Vietnam war;
and the A-10. The major difference be-
WASHINGTON.-It can take a lot to shake
die
Opening the doors to a normalization
tween those aircraft and the Enforcer
the Pentagon's weapons-building bureauc-
est
of relations between the United States
seems to be the Harrier will cost an esti-
racy out of its accustomed ways-more, ap-
and the People's Republic of China, the
mated $4.3 million each, the A-10 is esti-
parently. than even the formidable ingenuity
lost
most powerful and the most populous
mated at $3.4 million, while the En-
and persistence of aircraft designer David B.
ro-
countries in the world, respectively;
forcer can be built for under $1 million-
Lindsay. Jr.
are
Seeking agreements with the Soviet
the current estimate is $770,000.
Mr. Lindsay, who is also a wealthy Florida
ple.
The Air Force has known about the
newspaper publisher, has been trying for
of
Union to reduce our respective nuclear
three years to interest the Defense Depart-
nd,
armaments and to further economic re-
Enforcer for 3 years. In 1971, according
ment in his design for an attack aircraft to
ted
lations between the two nuclear giants;
to the Wall Street Journal. Air Force
provide close support to ground troops. He
.nd
and
pilots tested the plane at Eglin Air Force
has built a rugged little warplane, called the
die
Achieving cease-fire and disengage-
Base. One of the pilots is quoted as say-
Enforcer, that packs a potent punch, carries
ment agreements in the Middle East that
ing that the Enforcer performed better
a bargain-basement price tag, gets high
icy
represent important steps leading from
than was expected and:
marks for performance-and leaves the Pen-
iet
tagon cold.
war to peace in that war-torn region of
Technically, it didn't have all that fancy
m-
the world.
stuff. It was just a good platform that could
Designer Lindsay has run into one bureau-
ere
cratic roadblock after another. He has failed
I join with the President in recognizing
take the punishment and deliver the ord-
:he
nance.
to persuade the Pentagon to give the En-
the
and thanking Secretary of State Henry
forcer a full-scale flight test, much less con-
an
Kissinger and his able staff for the Her-
All of us are aware of the fact that ad-
sider buying it.
the
culean work that they did in keeping
vances in technology are sometimes sup-
"I'm totally frustrated." he says. "We aren't
The
the negotiations going and finally reach-
pressed through inadvertence, lack of
selling anything. We're just trying to get the
Iz-
ing an agreement when at times it ap-
initiative, or worse. Recently my Subcom-
plane tested. The Defense Department has
of
his
peared that their efforts would end in
mittee on Priorities and Economy in
given up knocking the airplane and now
says, "There's no requirement for it.' "
in-
an impasse. The United States is most
Government held hearings on a new
The apparent reason for official coolness is
ice
fortunate in having a man of Dr. Kis-
method for converting garbage and waste
simply that the military brass fears that the
ri-
singer's intellectual training and politi-
materials into glucose. The glucose, in
Enforcer would show up, or even threaten,
he
cal understanding as our Secretary of
turn, can be used to manufacture etha-
such pet projects as the Air Force's new A10
er-
State. Never before, have seen an in-
nol, a fuel. or single-cell protein, a food
attack jet and the Marine Corps' vertical-
of
dividual display more physical stamina,
source. The process was developed in an
liftoff Harrier; those planes, which are de-
in
at
patience, and imagination in working for
Army laboratory. Yet, the civilian agen-
signed for the same close-support role as
an
the cause of world peace.
cies which should be directly concerned
the Enforcer, are more costly and complex.
ler
Mr. President, in spite of yesterday's
with the energy and food implications
"The services are closing every door they
can," says a staff member of the Senate
le-
welcome news, there is much more that
have expressed little interest and taken
Armed Services Committee. "The Enforcer
needs to be done before lasting peace can
no steps to follow up the new technology.
is too practical and too cheap to appeal to
1g-
be a reality in the Middle East. As Presi-
Here is an example, in the case of the
them."
ild
dent Nixon stated in his announcement
Enforcer, of a potential major break-
LONELY STORAGE
ial
of the disengagement agreement between
through of the cost barrier to new, need-
And so the prototype plane, developed en-
ng
Israel and Syria:
ed weapon systems. A private individual
tirely with funds put up by Mr. Lindsay and
et.
le-
We should have in mind that despite the
aided by a relatively small firm has built
Piper Aircraft Corp., sits in lonely storage
ps
fact that these two agreements have now
a prototype of an aircraft which appears
in Vero Beach, Fla., far from the wild blue
yonder.
ng
been reached, there are many difficulties
to satisfy the Pentagon's requirement for
I
ahead before a permanent settlement is
an aircraft that we have spent millions
(Mr. Lindsay is an unpaid consultant both
nd
reached.
of dollars trying to develop.
to Piper, which bought the prototype,
n-
The Enforcer can not only do the
patents and manufacturing rights from him
However, the President pledged that:
in late 1970, and to Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,
As far as the United States is concerned, we
things the Pentagon says a new close air
he
which last year made an agreemnt with
on
shall continue with our diplomatic initia-
support plane needs to do, it can be built,
Piper that could give it manufacturing
ut
tires, working with all governments in the
according to its designer, for a fraction
rights.)
id
area, working toward achieving the goal of
of the cost of the planes now being
Ironically, Pentagon rebuffs of the En-
esd.
a permanent settlement-a permanent peace.
considered.
forcer have coincided with calls from Defense
As a U.S. Senator, I pledge to give my
The only thing that seems to be in the
Secretary James Schlesinger for simpler,
full support to the President's noble ef
way of testing out the Enforcer to see
cheaper warplanes. And officials concede that
forts to build a more lasting structure for
Mr. Lindsay's baby is such a craft-and more
if it can measure up to its promises is
besides. After seeing Air Force and Marine
peace.
Government redtape and bureaucratic
Corps studies of the Enforcer, Deputy Da-
resentment. There may also be industrial
fense Secretary William Clements, the Penta-
AN ATTACK AIRCRAFT THAT IS
resistance from the aerospace companies
gon procurement chief, wrote: "There is
CHEAP AND GOOD GETS COLD
now in the running.
little question the Enforcer can meet the
SHOULDER
Whatever the reasons, they are unac-
general performance claims."
ceptable. At the very least, the Enforcer
But he added that "neither service sees a
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, it is
role for Enforcer in the combat scenarios on
should be examined and tested so that
difficult to understand why the Penta-
which their future plans for aircraft inven-
an initial official evaluation of its ad-
tories are based." Charles Meyers, assistant
FORD
son refuses to seriously consider a new
vantages and disadvantages can be
director of Defense Department research for
GERALD
LIBRARY
9272
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
May 30, 1974
air warfare, puts it more plainly. "It's a nifty
test would cost about $6 million-money
but, more important, the retaining of
little airplane," he says. "But unfortunately
that Chairman John Stennis of the Senate
their trained services once their initial
the office of Secretary of Defense doesn't have
Armed Services Committee has indicated
enlistment has expired.
the power to stimulate the services to have
would be available if requested by the De-
a need for the thing."
fense Department.
The retention of highly qualified indi-
UNCOMPLICATED AND INEXPENSIVE
To Mr. Lindsay and such key legislators
viduals in our military has always been
What intrigues Mr. Meyers and other air-
as Republican Sens. Barry Goldwater of Ari-
a rough road to travel. It has been
craft experts is that the Enforcer is uncom-
zona and Strom Thurmond of South Caro-
accomplished to some degree in the past.
plicated and inexpensive. (At an estimated
lina, it makes good sense to test the Enfor-
however, because of the benefits offered
$770,000 each it would cost a lot less than the
cer further. In Mr. Lindsay's view, the plane
while on active duty and especially those
Harrier's $4.3 million and the A10's $3.4
would provide "damn cheap insurance"
available upon retirement.
million.) The Enforcer can operate from
against the failure of the A10, not yet in
These new policies of restricting or
short, rough runways, stay aloft for long pe-
production, and he contends that it would
riods and deliver heavy firepower-ideal
find a large market overseas, especially in
denying some of these benefits will surely
qualities for close-support aircraft.
Asia.
sabotage the already perilous effort to
Perhaps Democratic Rep. Robert Sikes of
retain dedicated men and women in our
The Enforcer has a speed range of 86 to 440
miles an hour and is heavily armored to pro-
Florida summed up the situation best a
armed services and may also discourage
tect the pilot from ground fire. It mounts
year ago, when he told then-Navy Secretary
those who plan to enter the service as a
six internal 50-caliber machine guns that
John Warner during a hearing:
career.
can each spit out 1,100 rounds a minute, and
"I have noted other instances, Mr. Secre-
The potential dangers of this policy
it can carry 10 rockets, missiles or bombs.
tary, where weapons systems and equipment
should not just concern the generals in
"As far as shooting up people with guns or
have been offered to the services but be-
the Pentagon. It should be of great con-
stopping tanks with missiles," Mr. Lindsay
cause they were not developed by the test-
says, "we think the Enforcer will do it as well
ing service, they were given the cold shoul-
cern to each and every American. The
as or better than the A10 and at one-fourth
der. I do not think that is the proper ap-
Founders of this great Nation made it
the price."
proach.
abundantly clear that a strong and vig-
In an age of sleek jets, it's true, the En-
"I think the services should be willing to
ilant military force has to be a high pri-
forcer hardly appears sexy. It most resembles
test equipment that has promise. The old
ority if we are to remain a free and
the famed World War II P51 Mustang and
P51 was a great aircraft in its day. That
viable people. Such strength and vigi-
has, of all things, a propeller. But Mr. Lindsay
was a long time ago. Maybe it no longer has
lance will not be possible if the Nation's
stresses that the propeller is driven by a jet
any value. But this is & modernized version,
career military and our veterans are met
engine, which should make for extreme re-
and if it does have value, it could save the
liability and easy maintenance.
government a lot of money. We would like
at every corner of life with a pie in the
Moreover, he contends that a jet-prop
to have more than paper studies."
face.
plane like the Enforcer has a significant ad-
I understand that these new policies
vantage over a pure jet in flying slow-and-
for medical benefits have been prompted
low cost support missions. Because most of
MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR OUR RE-
by a shortage of doctors in the military.
the heat from the engine is used to turn the
TIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL
The Senate passed in December a meas-
propeller, rather than being pushed out the
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I have
ure creating cash bonuses for doctors to
rear of the engine, the Enforcer should be a
lot less vulnerable to heat-seeking antiair-
watched with growing alarm the recent
enter our armed services, and I earnestly
craft missiles, which proved so deadly in last
development of policies by the various
hope this will help alleviate this shortage.
October's Mideast war.
branches of our military services to re-
But, this country cannot afford, in the
While the Enforcer generally draws high
trict or deny outright the medical ben-
interim, to forsake those who have dedi-
marks, It isn't faultless. A pilot who has
efits of our retired military personnel.
cated their lives to her service, and I
flown the plane describes it as a "bit of a tail
dragger." And Gen. Robert Cushman, com-
This new policy comes as a great shock
want those in the Pentagon who formu-
to me as I am sure it does indeed to those
late these policies to be well aware of the
mandant of the Marine Corps, reecntly wrote
that the Enforcer "would provide a lesser
Americans who have served this great
grave consequences of such action, and of
combat capability" than light attack jets
country for so many years.
my deep and abiding concern over the
currently in the Marines' inventory, although
Mr. President, my home State of
restriction or denial of medical benefits
he didn't make any detailed comparisons.
Georgia is proud to have thousands of
promised to retired military personnel.
The Enforcer grew out of Mr. Lindsay's
interest in restoring P51 Mustangs during
military retirees living within her Lound-
the 1960s for sale to Latin American coun-
aries. These dedicated Americans have
TAX-EXEMPT BONDS
tries through the U.S. military-assistance
either come home to their native soil or
program. Using ideas picked up from Amer-
settled in Georgia upon retirement not
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, the
ican pilots who had flown in Vietnam, Mr.
only for the boundless opportunities we
Office of Management and Budget has
Lindsay started designing the plane. In the
proudly offer, but also because within our
proposed implementation of some new
spring of 1971, when the U.S. Air Force
State are excellent military installations
guidelines for Federal credit policies in
sought ideas for a counterinsurgency plane
representing each branch of our Armed
a draft proposal referred to as "Circular
for the South Vietnamese, he and Piper Air-
Forces.
A-70." Among the proposals is included
craft stepped forward with the Enforcer.
Now, after 20 or more years of dedi-
a provision which would preclude the
In August 1971, Air Force pilots briefly flew
cated and honorable service to the de-
Federal Government from guaranteeing.
the Enforcer at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
One of them, now-retired Major James Til-
fense of this Nation, these brave men
insuring, or subsidizing in any way State
burg, says today: "It did as much as or more
and women, who have faced the battles
and local government bonds if the in-
than was designed into the test plan. Tech-
of three wars and remained vigilant dur-
terest on such bonds is tax-exempt. This
nically, it didn't have all that fancy stuff.
ing years of peace, are being told that
circular has provoked criticism from
It was just a good platform that could take
strings were attached and fingers were
most State governments which use such
the punishment and deliver the ordnance."
crossed when Uncle Sam promised them
bonds to finance such projects as higher
After these 1971 flights, the designer, Mr.
the benefit of free medical care upon re-
education facilities and medical care fa-
Lindsay says, "we went back to Vero Beach
tirement.
cilities.
and waited for an order." When nothing
I submit that such a policy is a slap in
In my own State, our legislature has
happened, he returned to the drawing board
and kept on improving the aircraft. In early
the face to these Americans, and indeed
gone on record in opposition to this cir-
1973, disgusted at the government's inaction,
to this Congress which has for nearly 200
cular because many projects dependent
he started making the rounds of Pentagon
years raised and provided for armies to
on Federal assistance and involving issu-
and Capitol Hill offices in an effort to win
defend this Nation.
ance of tax-exempt bonds would be jeop-
a full-scale flight test of his plane. But all
I have followed closely the past few
ardized.
he got was a paper study-and, last month,
word that there isn't any need for the En-
years the struggles of our military to
Mr. President. I ask that the Colorado
forcer. Today he will tell the full story to the
develop and maintain an all-volunteer
House Joint Resolution 104 be printed
House Appropriations subcommittee on de-
force, and I sincerely hope this will be
in the RECORD, and I urge my colleagues
fense.
successful. To accomplish that in this
to review it carefully.
About $3 million has gone into the devel-
day and age, however, is not an easy
There being no objection, the joint res-
opment of the Enforcer, roughly one-third of
task, and involves not only the recruit-
olution was ordered to be printed in the
it from Mr. Lindsay's pocket. A.full flight
ing of dedicated young men and women,
RECORD, as follows:
1974
July 1, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- Extensions of Remarks
4415
30 in-
approval of those bodies which do have
The authority of this Department,
tucky, however, I have heard talk regarding
Id op-
statutory jurisdiction to approve or disap-
through its Natural Resources Commission,
the construction of several. With regard to
osence
prove of plant location and construction,
relates to two general areas of power plant
public participation of public hearings, it is
agen-
such as the various zoning authorities,
development. These are (1) the withdrawal
my understanding that prior to the issuance
con-
Stream Pollution Control Board, Environ-
of water from navigable streams (generally
of any construction permit regarding a point
power
mental Management Board, etc.
for cooling purposes) and (2) any plant
source of this nature that federal regula-
Yours very truly,
construction in the floodway of a river or
tions require a period for public comment.
to
LARRY J. WALLACE,
stream. This authority is exercised through
There are no public hearings scheduled at
no
Chairman.
a permit system.
this time because as stated above we have no
tric
The Commission does not normally hold
official knowledge of proposed construction.
im-
STATE BCARD OF HEALTH,
"public hearings" in the usual sense of the
If I can be of further assistance to you in
How-
truc-
Indianapolis, Ind., May 24, 1974.
word on permit matters, although it could
this matter, please do not hesitate to advise.
Re Power Plant Siting.
do so if deemed necessary or desirable. Con-
Sincerely yours,
:ams,
Hon. LEE H. HAMILTON,
sideration of permit matters is normally
HERMAN D. REGAN, Jr.
ire a
Com-
House of Representatives, Rayburn Building,
handled at the regular monthly meetings of
Commissioner, Bureau of
a for
Washington, D.C.
the Commission, at which any citizen has
Environmental Quality.
tion,
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HAMILTON: This ac-
the right, and will be given the opportunity,
knowledges your letter of May 15, 1974, rela-
to be heard on any given matter under con-
gen-
ions.
tive to subject matter. This will serve to
sideration.
viro-
acknowledge similar letters directed to the
No formal applications for permit have
AIR FORCE CONTRADICTIONS
Air Pollution Control Board and the Stream
yet been filed by any utility for a new plant
on
Pollution Control Board. We have responded
in the Madison area and thus no time can
C.
to the Madison Chamber of Commerce's ques-
be given as to when they will be considered
HON. LES ASPIN
tions on this matter.
by the Commission. However, any citizen may
he
This office is concerned with the number
at any time request to be notified in ad-
OF WISCONSIN
re-
of proposed plants along the Ohio adjacent
vance of the date of Commission considera-
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
rict
to Indiana. The staff has met with two In-
tion and we will provide adequate notice so
Monday, July 1, 1974
diana companies (Indianapolis Power &
that they may be heard.
Tue
Light Company and Public Service Indiana)
In addition to approvals by the Natural
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon
of
concerning proposed locations near Rising
Resources Commission, permits from the
has given Congress contradictory and
Sun and downstream from Madison. In ad-
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
misleading information on the capabil-
dition, Indiana representatives to ORSANCO
(with respect to water quality and solid
ities of a new, highly effective jet fight-
proposed that a study be undertaken of all
waste disposal), the Indiana Air Pollution
1788
existing and proposed plants along the Ohio
Control Board, and the Environmental
er-the Enforcer-which is an attractive
River with respect to environmental factors.
Management Board (with respect to radia-
alternative to A-10 close-air-support air-
The ORSANCO staff, in cooperation with the
tion control for nuclear plants) are also re-
craft.
Power Industry Advisory Committee to OR
quired and all these Boards provide for
Recently released House Armed Serv-
SANCO, is to undertake this study at once.
citizens to be heard.
ices Committe testimony about the En-
The Stream Pollution Control Board is
Sincerely yours,
forcer presented by Air Force Gen. W. J.
concerned with discharges to watercourses
JOSEPH D. CLOUD, Director.
Evans is so misleading and in part, un-
with respect to temperature, water quality
and consumptive use of water. Residents ad-
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
true, that I have no choice but to con-
Frankfort, Ky., May 17, 1974.
clude that his actions were deliberate.
jacent to proposed plants may offer com-
ments to the Stream Board relative to these
Congressman LEE H. HAMILTON,
Each Enforcer costs slightly more than
concerns. In addition the Environmental
Rayburn Building,
$1 million while the cost of the A-10 is
Management Board and the Air Pollution
Washington, D.C.
$3.4 million per aircraft. Current Air
Control Board are responsible for other en-
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HAMILTON: Chairman
Force plans include a buy of 729 A-10's
vironmental concerns including air quality.
William A. Logan has requested that the
to support ground combat troops at a
Comment on all concerns registered with the
undersigned respond to your letter of May 15,
total cost of approximately $2.4 billion.
State Board of Health will be directed to the
1974, concerning the possible construction of
power plants in the vicinity of Madison,
Mr. Speaker, General Evans told the
proper Board.
We do not auticipate scheduling public
Indiana.
House Armed Services Committee on
hearings on this matter. However, if projects
A utility seeking to construct such facili-
April 5 that "the range of the aircraft-
are to be considered by one of the above
ties in Kentucky would be required to obtain
the Enforcer-is limited." But, Mr.
mentioned Boards, we will advise the local
a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
Speaker, I am publicly releasing an Air
community so that requests for appearances
from this agency-that is, authority to build
Force factsheet on the Enforcer which
may-be made.
the power plant. The hearing would be held
shows that its aircraft's range is 3,075
Sincerely,
at which time the Commission would con-
WILLIAM T. PAYNTER, M.D.,
sider the demand and need of service and the
miles-475 miles greater than the range
State Health Commissioner, Indiana
econòmic and engineering feasibility.
of the A-10.
State Board of Health.
General Evans also complained that
the Enforcer could not take off from
We will keep you advised.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
Yours very truly,
short runways. The same Air Force fact-
Indianapolis, Ind., May 20, 1974.
RICHARD D. HEMAN, Jr.,
sheet shows that the Enforcer needs only
Hon. LEE H. HAMILTON,
Secretary.
1,100 feet to take off compared to the A-
House of Representatives, Rayburn Building,
10's 3,020 feet.
Washington, D.C.
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
I am publicly releasing a detailed sum-
DEAR Mr. HAMILTON: This is in response
Frankfort, Ky., May 31, 1974.
mary of all the major contradictions in
to your letter of May 15, 1974 expressing the
Hon. LEE H. HAMILTON,
concern of citizens of the Madison, Indiana
Congress of the United States, House of Rep-
the various Air Force presentations on
area relative to planned and potential power
resentatives, Rayburn Building, Wash-
Enforcer, including the aircraft's speed,
plant development in the general vicinity of
ington, D.C.
landing distance, and number of bomb
Madison.
DEAR MR. HAMILTON: This is in response
stations. With so much contradictory
As you know, the 1,303,560 KW Clifty Creek
to your letter of May 15, 1974, concerning the
evidence produced by the Air Force, it
plant of the Indiana-Kentucky Electric Cor-
construction and operation of electrical gen-
seems clear that the case of the Enforcer
poration is presently located at Madison and
erating facilities within the Commonwealth
and its rival, the A-10, should be re-
the 500,000 KW Ghent plant of Kentucky
of Kentucky. At the present time our Divi-
Utilities Company is located upstream at
viewed. One possibility would be for the
sion of Air Pollution has regulations which
Ghent, Kentucky (opposite Switzerland
provide the complete review of all plans and
Air Force to conduct a flyoff between the
County).
specifications of a proposed power plant. It
two planes to determine which one, given
Public Service Indiana has acquired the
must be determined that the construction or
its cost would be the most effective. Since
"Marble Hill" site about six miles down-
modification of any such facility will be con-
each A-10 is three times more expensive
stream from Madison and has announced its
sistent with all ambient air quality standards
than the Enforcer, the Enforcer seems to
plans for construction of a nuclear plant
both primary and secondary prior to the is-
be an attractive alternative to the A-10.
thereon. At least one other Indiana utility
suance of the mandatory construction per-
In fact, I think it may be difficult for
is investigating potential sites in the general
mit. It is my understanding that most states
vicinity. We do not have specific knowledge
have similar regulatory provisions.
the Air Force to prove that the A-10 is
of plans or proposals for plants on the Ken-
Presently there are no pending applications
three times better than the Enforcer.
tucky side of the river, but understand that
for construction permits to construct their
The Enforcer which is a single-engine
such do exist.
electrical power generating stations in Ken-
jet prop, was developed by Florida pub-
FORD
E 4416
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Extensions of Remarks
July 1, 1974
July 1,
lisher David Lindsay. Deputy Defense
72.5 PERCENT SAY PRESIDENT
great one, and it (Watergate) is all political.
THE CC
Secretary William Clements recently
SHOULD STAY
The news media and television are so unfair
COMM
said that the Enforcer had "met the gen-
to him, especially the "Today' television pro-
gram."
BLOCP
eral performance claims made by the
HON. EARL F. LANDGREBE
"Since we take only one Journal and
offeror." Mr. Clements' statement fur-
ther confuses the issue because Lindsay
OF INDIANA
Courier my husband used the ballot pro-
HON.
vided," one woman wrote. "I would also like
has claimed that the Enforcer has a
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
to vote and say STAY ON THE JOB! I am
maximum speed of 403 knots per hour-
Monday, July 1, 1974
sick, sick, sick of Watergate."
IN THE
faster than the A-10-while the Air
A West Lafayette reader wrote: "It was
Mr. LANDGREBE Mr. Speaker, a poll
Force says the Enforcer flies 330 knots
with great wisdom and statesmanship that
taken recently by the Lafayette, Ind.,
the founders of our great country divided the
per hour-slower than the A-10.
Mr.
--
Journal and Courier resulted in a tre-
powers of government into executive, legis-
The only way for the Congress to de-
arbitrary
mendous show of support for the Presi-
lative and judicial departments.
termine the facts is to order a complete
dent. Recent actions of the Democratic
"But today, not yet 200 years from our
than has
series of flight tests for the Enforcer and
founding, our people in Washington, in fact
catic CO
members of the Judiciary Committee will
compare it to the A-10.
government people everywhere, are not
of major
no doubt strengthen the view, present in
statesmen at all, but are a bunch of vulture-
would
As many of my colleagues know, De-
this poll, that the Watergate investiga-
like politicians engaged in a struggle for
Small E
fense Secretary James R. Schlesinger has
tion has been a biased, vengeful attack
power and picking the meat from each other's
the Hot
suggested that the Pentagon should buy
on President Nixon and a denial of the
bones.
On 3
cheaper, more simple weapons. The En-
accomplishments of his administration.
"President Nixon should stay on the job
111 to 9
forcer may just fit the bill for a highly
I refer to the Judiciary Committee's at-
and defend the office to which he was
effective and relatively cheap aircraft.
elected."
commit
tempt to waive the 5-minute rule for
And a Kentland woman opined: "I would
further
The Air Force's contradictions follow:
questioning impeachment hearing wit-
like to see everyone who is investigating Mr.
fourth
AIR FORCE CONTRADICTIONS
nesses, Chairman RODINO'S alleged com-
Nixon investigated also. So far as I know,
signed
ment that all 21 of the committee's Dem-
RANGE
only one perfect man has walked this earth.
substal
Air Force Statement: "The range of the
ocrats would, in his estimation, support
Right?"
ample
aircraft is limited." (Gen. Evans, House
a vote of impeachment, and the refusal
Another subscriber wrote from Lafayette:
to refo
Armed Services Subcommittee, April 5, 1974).
of the Democrats to summon all 6 of the
"Congress should get off his back! I can't
see why the taxpayers have to pay all those
Appart
Contradiction: Enforcer range is greater
witnesses recommended by James St.
Clair, defense counsel.
men to nit-pick at the President."
those
(3075 miles) compared to A-10's (2600 miles).
The heavy support for President Nixon
of juri
(Air Force Fact Sheet, June 1974).
I call the attention of my colleagues to
almost duplicated the results of a Journal
Sup
SURVIVABILITY
the June 10 poll by quoting excerpts from
and Courier reader survey in June, 1973. In
Repub
Air Force Statement: Q: Does it (Enforcer)
the Journal and Courier. Special note
that one, 1,106 persons sent in ballots with
ship g
have less survivability than the A-7?
should be taken of the student poll.
801, or 72.4 per cent, saying the President
they i
A: I would say yes. (Gen. Evans, House
EXCERPTS FROM POLL
should stay on the job.
the D
Armed Services Subcommittee, April 5, 1974).
A year ago 193 persons called for resigna-
(By Robert Kriebel)
tion compared to 69 this year. Last year 112
bers a
Contradiction: Detailed study by Joint
This is still Nixon Country.
persons recommended impeachment com-
it a IT
Technical Co-Ordinate Group of the Naval
Not much question about it when you sift
pared to 360 this year.
its red
Air Systems Command reveals that the En-
through responses to the Journal and Cour-
Both surveys were conducted on the same
The
forcer is less vulnerable to 23mm, 57mm and
ier's June 10 ballot on the question: "What
basis-that of a "straw vote" by interested
chair
SA7 missile than A-7. (DDR&E Fact Sheet,
Do You Think of Nixon Now?"
readers. Neither. consequently, necessarily
and
June 1974).
Out of 1,574 replies, a total of 1,143 said
reflects what a more scientific sample of area
TAKE-OFF
Nixon should stay on the job.
residents might show.
more
Air Force Statement: "The ability to take
That's 72.5 per cent.
And as in 1973, the poll itself was the object
unan
off from unimproved short strips with heavy
A total of 362 persons turned in ballots
of a few comments.
do no
bomb load is extremely limited." (Gen.
saying that President Nixon should be the
One woman wrote: "May I stand up and
dictic
Evans, House Armed Services Subcommittee,
object of impeachment proceedings by the
cheer? Once for my country, once for my
impo
April 5, 1974).
Congress. This represented 23.1 per cent of
President, and once for the Journal and
by t]
Contradiction: Enforcer take-off distance
those who returned ballots.
Courier for publishing this ballot for the
TI
(at full weight) is 1100 ft. compared to 3020
And 69 readers said the President should
little people."
tion
ft. for A-10. (Air Force Fact Sheet, June
resign, or 4.4 per cent.
1974).
And in over 150 accompanying notes, cards
STUDENT POLL BACKS NIXON, Too
accc
and letters explaining ballots, readers went
The
MAXIMUM SPEED
Lafayette area students responding to a
Air Force Statement: Enforcer's maximum
on to say Nixon has been an excellent Presi-
poll favor President Nixon's staying in office.
wou
speed is 330 knots-slower than the A-10.
dent and critics should get off his back.
The students took part in a nationwide
star
(Air Force Fact Sheet, June 1974).
Many respondents said they felt Democrats
student opinion poll on the question. In the
the
Contradiction: Enforcer's maximum speed
In Congress, Communists, and the news me-
Lafayette area, about 53.5 per cent favored
istr:
is 403 knots-faster than the A-10 maximum
dia have combined to force the issue of Wa-
the President's remaining in office, while 8.5
the
speed of 390 knots. (David Lindsay, Enforcer
tergate into far more prominence than it is
per cent were undecided.
whi
worth, and that too few people recognize
The survey indicates that young people in
Developer).
Fed
Nixon Administration accomplishments or
this area are somewhat more favorably dis-
LANDING DISTANCE
show a willingness to face real domestic is-
posed toward the President than are students
wot
Air Force Statement: Landing distance is
sues like the rising cost of living or energy
nationwide.
des
3000 ft. for the Enforcer at maximum
shortages.
More than 130,000 students in all parts of
I
weight-longer than A-10's of 2140 ft. (Air
"Never have we had a President that has
the nation took part in the poll. The vast
ten
Force Fact Sheet, June 1974).
done as much for our country or has been
majority of the students are in grades 5
nes
Contradiction: At normal landing weight
treated so dirty," one reader said.
through 12.
bet
Enforcer needs a shorter runway (880 ft.)
"We appreciate what our President has
Nationwide, students seem evenly split on
comapred to 1050 ft. for A-10. (Data pro-
done SO far," wrote another. "Such as peace
the question. About 41.6 per cent felt Mr.
pa
vided by Air Force Office of Legislative Af-
with honor in Vietnam, bringing home POWs,
Nixon should remain in office. 42 per cent
Tr
fairs, June 1974)
ending the draft and the leadership for world
thought it would be best for the country if
pe
ENGINE
peace, to name a few."
he were out of office, and 16.4 per cent were
ad
Air Force Statement: Enforcer will be pow-
undecided.
"Last year at this time, in response to your
SII
ered by 3445 horsepower engine. (Air Force
The poll was conducted by the Journal
poll," another reader wrote, "I was in full
to
Fact Sheet, June 1974).
and Courier and 220 other daily newspapers
support of President Nixon.
te
Contradiction: Enforcer will be powered
in cooperation with Visual Education Con-
"Today my position has not changed. There
sultants, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin. The
with 2950 horsepower engine. (David Lind-
have been many new revelations since last
say, Enforcer Developer).
survey was part of a current events program
A:
year and I must confess I have had doubts of
that these newspapers give to schools in their
m
BOMB STATIONS
President Nixon's innocence several times.
areas. The Journal and Courier provides the
ti
Air Force Statement: Enforcer has 6 bomb
"But these short moments of doubt have
program to 10 schools in this area. The pro-
in
stations. Air Force Fact Sheet, June 1974).
always been followed by long periods of full
gram includes weekly filmstrips of lieus
Contradiction: Enforcer has 10 bomb sta-
photos, together with discussion materials
it
trust and confidence in my President."
tions. (From Air Force Office of Legislative
A man and wife. in a joint letter from
written on several levels of difficulty. for
a
Affairs, June 1974)
Fowler wrote: "We think the President is a
students for varying ages.
0
F
BARRY GOLDWATER
COMMITTEES:
ARIZONA
AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES
ARMED SERVICES
PREPAREONESS INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE
United States Senate
TACTICAL AIR POWER SUBCOMMITTEE
NATIONAL STOCKPILE AND NAVAL PETROLEUM
RESERVES SUBCOMMITTEE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
May 7, 1973
Mr. Edward H. Sims
Editor's Copy Syndicate
Post Office Box 532
Orangeburg, South Carolina 29115
Dear Ed:
It is good to know that they are going to run tests
on the Enforcer and, naturally, I hope they come out
well. There is no way a computer can fly an airplane.
Somebody with eyes and a brain has to do that.
With best wishes,
Barry Barry Goldwater
solor c. STENHES, MISS., CHAIRMAN
STUART SYMINGTON, MO.
STROM THURMOND, E.C.
MENRY M. JACKSON, WASH.
JOHN TOWER, TEX.
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., N.C.
PETER H. DOMINICK, COLO
NOWARD W. CANNON, NEV.
BARRY GOLDWATER, ARIZ.
THOMAS 1. MC INTYRE, N.M.
WILLIAM B. SAXBE, OHIO
MARRY F. BYRO, JR., VA.
WILLIAM L SCOTT, VA.
United States Senate
MAROLD E. HUGHES, IOWA
SAM NUNN, GA.
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
T. EDWARD BRASWELL, JR., CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
March 12, 1974
Mr. Edward H. Sims
Publisher
Editor's Copy Syndicate
P. O. Box 532
Orangeburg, S. C. 29115
Dear Mr. Sims:
Thank you for your letter of March 7th with
enclosures. My remarks hold firm as to the availability
of this money.
With best wishes, and looking forward to receiving
the papers you are sending, I am
Sincerely,
John C.Stenn
John C. Stennis
United States Senator
JCS:eh
FUNITED OF AMEND
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20380
IN REPLY REFER TO
AAW-3A
13110
STATES
OF
3 APR 1973
Mr. David B. Lindsay
Enforcer Project Consultant
Piper Aircraft Corporation
Post Office Box 1719
Sarasota, Florida 33578
Dear Mr. Lindsay,
The Marine Corps has been asked to conduct an evaluation
of the ENFORCER aircraft to determine its suitability for
use within the Department of Defense.
The evaluation will consist of an analytical appraisal
to determine the ENFORCER's operational capability, perform-
ance, survivability and costs relative to other aircraft
available. This appraisal will be conducted with existing
assets since no funds are available for this project. The
need for flight testing of the ENFORCER will be determined
following the initial analysis and evaluation.
The data listed in enclosure (1) would be helpful to
this Headquarters (Code AAW) and the Naval Air Systems Com-
mand (Code 503, 506) in the evaluation. As a minimum, the
data contained in paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4,
3.1.5, 3.1.10, 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.7 are necessary in order
to make a meaningful evaluation.
A meeting has been scheduled with the Naval Air Systems
Command on 19 April 1973 to discuss specific requirements
for technical data required for the evaluation. Time and
place will be announced.
Marine Corps point of contact for the ENFORCER Project
is LtCol. E. C. PAIGE, Jr., DC/S(AIR), Code AAW-5, OX-41729.
Your interest in providing the above data is appreciated.
Sincerely,
EStrir
E.S.FRIS
MAJOR GENERAL, U. S. MARINE CORPS
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF (AIR)
AAW-3A
13110
Encl: (1) Technical Information Requirements for Aircraft
Proposal, WR-94
Copy to:
DDR&E (Land Warfare, LtCol. METZKO) (W/O Encl)
CNO (OP-05, 098, 506) (W/O Encl)
CHNAVMAT (W/O Encl)
NAVAIRSYSCOM (AIR-503, 506) (w/o Encl)
Committee on Armed Services (Attn: Mr. E.B. Kinney)
2
JOHN c. STENNES, MISS., CHAIRMAN
STUART SYMINGTON, MO.
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE
HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH.
STROM THURMOND, s.c.
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., N.C.
JOHN TOWER, TEX.
HOWARD W. CANNON, NEV.
PETER H. DOMINICK, COLO,
THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, N.H.
BARRY GOLDWATER. ARIZ.
HARRY F. BYRD, JR., VA,
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA.
United States Senate
HAROLD E. HUGHES, IOWA
WILLIAM E. SAXES, OHIO
LLOYD BENTSEN, TEX.
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
7. BOWARD BRASWELL, JR., CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
February 15, 1973
General Robert E. Cushman
Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
Washington, D.C. 20380
Dear General Cushman:
In recent months, we have become acquainted with the Enforcer,
a close support prop-jet aircraft developed entirely with pri-
vate funds now available from Piper Aircraft.
It seems to us quite possible that it offers us a fine close
air support weapon at very low cost. It appears to have a
capability to kill tanks, operate from forward fields, and
loiter for many hours. It is highly armored with a very low
infrared silhouette.
There has been a considerable operational spectrum left between
the armed helicopter and pure jets, now that the propeller-
driven A-1 Skyraider has been phased out of the inventory of
all services. And inasmuch as its cost is likely to be only a
fraction of other close support aircraft proposed, we would very
much like to see the Marine Corps, as an air-sea-land service,
test the Enforcer to see where it will best fit into the defense
posture.
Sincerely,
Strom Strom Thurmond Thermond John Tower John G. Tower
REPRINT FROM
Aviation Week
& Space Technology
Editor-in-Chief: Robert B. Hotz
ARMY REEVALUATES ENFORCER NEED
Washington-Army is reevaluating its roles and missions requirements at the request of
the House Armed Services research and development subcommittee to assess the need
for a fixed-wing aircraft like the Cavalier Enforcer close-support airplane based on the
North American P-51 design.
The Army has been asked to complete the evaluation of its missions and the need for
an Enforcer-type aircraft by mid-November, the same date by which the Air Force, Navy
and Marine Corps have been asked to reevaluate their needs for an aircraft like the
Enforcer.
The services earlier told Congress in Fiscal 1975 budget hearings that no
requirement existed for the aircraft. The action to seek a reevaluation and delay a flight
test decision came Oct. 10. The subcommittee wanted to avoid preempting an Air Force
evaluation by a team from the Aeronautical Systems Div., Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
(AW&ST Sept. 23, p. 27). The team's report is scheduled for submission to USAF Chief
of Staff Gen. David C. Jones by mid-October.
The Army was asked to assess its requirements in light of the understranding it has
with the Air Force to operate rotary wing aircraft, and to address the claim that the
"Army by not being in the fixed-wing business has the need for an aircraft [fixed wing]
to fill the gap between the helicopter and the jet," a House staff member said. The
move could give the Army an opening to return to fixed-wing operations if it determines
the requirement exists, Defense officials believe.
A decision to press the Pentagon to produce four prototype Enforcers and eventually
flight test them will not be made by the subcomittee until the services report their
evaluations.
The subcommittee determined in its meeting that the Enforcer is not considered a
competitor for the Fairchild Industries A-10.
The House subcommittee members believe that misinformation earlier caused the
services to determine they had no Enforcer-type requirement and expect that a
reevaluation may yield other results.
Aviation Week & Space Technology, October 14, 1974
NEWS REPORT
FROM WASHINGTON
Alabama's Dickinson-
Fights For Air Support-
Nov.
The Air Force-
The Army-
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A
What the subcommittee
long struggle has been waged
learned in that session led
by many in Congress (for two
to another meeting, demand-
years) to get the Pentagon
ed by Alabama's Bill Dick-
to flight test a cheap close
inson, who wanted House
support aircraft, the En-
members of the Armed Serv-
forcer, which has been built
ices Committee to join in
and financed without govern-
the appeal to Schlesinger.
ment money or government
That second session, on
planning and design.
October 3rd, produced not
For a long time the Air
the letter many wanted. but
Force has been the most
a memorandum from the com-
formidable bar to a test-by
mittee staff, which may or
misrepresenting the facts
may not produce a test. The
concerning the Enforcer and
memorandum, in effect, ask-
also by favoring a much more
ed the services about their
expensive close support air-
requirements, and to reeval-
craft it helped plan and fi-
uate the close air support
nance with taxpayers' mon-
doctrine accepted generally
ey.
since 1971.
The first strong pressure
Meanwhile, the new Air
from Congress came from
Force Chief of Staff, aware
the House Appropriations
his service was underheavy
Committee's Defense Sub-
fire for misrepresentation of
committee, which saw in the
the facts and blocking a
Enforcer the possibility of
flight test, recently ordered
huge savings--and an air-
a new top-level evaluation
craft the nation's armed
of the Enforcer's capability.
services could buy in num-
That study group found the
bers, if flight tests show it
aircraft would do what its
to be effective.
builders claim--and that it
More members of both
would probably cost about a
houses have become inter-
million dollars a copy. (The
ested. On the Senate side,
Air Force's proposed close
Senator Strom Thurmond (R-
support aircraft seems like-
SC) has been a leading ad-
ly to cost at least four or
vocate of tests and he has
five times that much--built
been joined by fellow Sena-
in similar quantities.)
tors, Republican and Demo-
The services are to report
back to the House subcom-
cratic. This past summer the
stalling at the Pentagon had
mittee by November 15th on
continued so long five Sena-
their reevaluations; most
tors signed a joint letter to
observers feel they will
Secretary of Defense Schles-
stick to their own weapons.
inger requesting flight tests.
But the Army is torn over
the issue; it recognizes that
Even though Schlesinger
the Air Force possesses the.
regularly talks about cheap-
close support role. And many
er weapons and effective,
Army officers are not happy
inexpensive weapons, and
about that, or the quality of
warns that the nation could
close support the Air Force
become a second class mili-
provides.
tary power, he has done
The top brass, however,
nothing to see that this
is hesitant to start an all-
promising, inexpensive air
outroles andmissions. fight,
weapon gets a test.
in view of past Army air pro-
In August the House Armed
jects which proved busts and
Services Committee got into
the superior lobbying power
the act. Its Research and
of the Air Force. Meanwhile,
Development Committee,
a promising, much cheaper
headed by Illinois' Mel
close support aircraft, de-
Price, held a special meet-
signed at notapenny's cost
ing to hear about the En-
to the government, waits in
forcer--and how it had been
the wings only to be tested,
misrepresented by Air Force
and could probably save the
spokesmen.
nation billions.
REPRINT FROM AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY
House Unit to Urge Enforcer Flight Test
Washington-House Armed Services re-
about the Enforcer and that he believes
been in touch with the services and that
search and development subcommittee
that the Air Force will flight test the
no requirement for the aircraft exists.
will meet this week to consider pressing
aircraft.
Rep. Price said he believes it is hard to
the Pentagon to test fly the Cavalier En-
Rep. Dickinson said USAF officials
support a letter asking for flight tests
forcer based on the North American
told him the prototype may not be in
when no requirement exists. He is hold-
Mustang fighter. There are growing signs
flightworthy condition. He said that he
ing back, he said, waiting to hear from
that the issue could prompt reopening of
and other representatives believe that if it
the Air Force team on its study.
the roles and missions agreements be-
is not, additional prototype aircraft
Rep. Otis G. Pike (D.-N. Y.) said he
tween the Army and USAF.
should be produced and test flown.
will support a House letter to the Penta-
Members of the subcommittee and a
Unless the Air Force is willing to test
gon asking for tests of the Enforcer.
number of other House members are
fly the Enforcer, Rep. Dickinson said, he
Pentagon officials believe that the De-
ready to send a letter to the Defense
intends to contact the Army about testing
fense Dept. already has decided that if
Dept. demanding that the Enforcer air-
it. He added that he and other members
enough House members ask for flight
craft be flight tested either by the Direc-
of the House will delve into roles and
testing the Enforcer in addition to earlier
torate of Defense Research and Engi-
missions between the Army and Air
Senate pressure, the tests will be con-
neering (DDR&E) with support of all the
Force.
ducted.
services or by the Air Force. David B.
It could mean putting the Army back
"Congress believes that there is a mis-
Lindsay is the developer of the aircraft,
into the fixed wing business again, Con-
sion for the aircraft and that it is not
which Lockheed-Georgia would produce
gressional staffers said.
viewed as a competitor for the A-10
(AW&ST Aug. 12, p. 50).
Rep. Melvin Price (D.-III.), chairman
[Fairchild Industries close-support air-
A similar letter by five ranking mem-
of the R&D subcommittee, said members
craft]," a Defense Dept. official said, "and
bers of the Senate went to the Pentagon
of the subcommittee are urging a letter
it looks like we will test it, dragging our
requesting flight tests in July for the
calling for flight tests. He said he has
feet all the way."
close-support Enforcer.
In addition to House interest in testing
the aircraft, members of the White House
Ferranti, Caught in Cash Bind,
staff and the Office of Management and
Budget have been delving into Lindsay's
claims for the aircraft. The President's as-
Asks British Government Aid
sistant for legislative affairs, William E.
Timmons, has been gathering material on
London-Ferranti, Ltd., one of Britain's
sey Co. or the giant GEC, Ltd., which
the Enforcer.
largest high-technology defense contrac-
owns Marconi-Elliott, among others.
The Air Force in the past several weeks
tors, last week was forced to ask for Brit-
Unions at Ferranti are strongly opposed
has reversed an earlier position it had
ish government aid when its main
to this action.
taken on the aircraft and has established
banker, National Westminster, warned
Ferranti is one of the largest privately
a team to reexamine Lindsay's claims for
that it was exceeding a loan limit of $38
controlled companies in Britain, with 56%
the Enforcer. USAF officials earlier told
million.
of the stock held by the Ferranti brothers
Congress the Enforcer could not perform
Financial sources here believe Fer-
and family trusts.
as a previous Pentagon study said it
ranti, largely a family-owned concern,
In 1973-74, Ferranti had revenues of
could.
was forced into the liquidity crisis
$165 million, but reported a loss of
The USAF team to investigate the En-
through National Westminster's reaction
$80,000. Sebastian Ferranti blamed the
forcer was formed at the Aeronautical
to its large potential loss in the Court
loss on two fires, rising costs of stock re-
Systems Div., Wright-Patterson AFB,
Line bankruptcy and subsequent hard
placement and research and develop-
Ohio, and is headed by Fred T. Rall,
look at all of its industrial loans (AW&ST
ment, and industrial disputes. He also
technical director for ASD engineering.
Sept. 2, p. 30).
said that in common with other com-
The team visited Lockheed-Georgia Sept.
Faced with a lack of cash to meet its
panies, Ferranti has been faced with the
9 to study engineering designs.
16,000-employe payroll, the Ferranti
effects of inflation.
Some members of the team later trav-
brothers, Sebastian, company chairman
The company is a major force in the
eled to Vero Beach, Fla., where a pro-
and managing director, and Basil, a di-
European avionics industry, and about
totype Enforcer is hangared.
rector, conferred with Dept. of Industry
15% of its business is on contracts for the
The team is scheduled to report its
and Treasury officials on a rescue plan, at
Anglo-French Jaguar, the Hawker Sid-
findings by mid-October to Air Force
least on a temporary basis.
deley Harrier and the multi-role combat
Chief of Staff, Gen. David C. Jones. Gen.
Industry Minister Anthony Benn, him-
aircraft (MRCA). For years, the trans-
Jones formed the team after an Aug. 17
self heavily involved in the Court Line
former side of Ferranti's business had
meeting in the Pentagon with Lindsay.
collapse and subsequent government in-
shored up profits, but this has fallen off in
Defense Dept. officials said that the
tervention, last week was taking a
recent years.
team, which USAF officials have told
cautious line on Ferranti, while assuring
Ferranti's moves into high-technology
House members is taking a fresh ap-
worried union leaders that the firm would
research and development, at a time
proach in looking at the Enforcer, is
not be allowed to go under.
when the British government was cutting
really seeking to determine facts about
First course will be to approve a $12-
back its own participation in industrial
the aircraft in relation to testimony ear-
million loan from the government, using
R&D for military purposes, is partly the
lier to Congress by USAF's Gen. W.J.
the 1972 Industry Act, which provides for
cause of Ferranti's current cash problem.
Evans, who was then head of research
such immediate intervention while hold-
In 1972-73, the R&D budget was $36 mil-
and development.
ing options open for eventual govern-
lion and this has tied up men and mate-
Rep. William L. Dickinson (R.-Ala.), a
ment shareholding.
rials without contributing to revenues.
member of the R&D subcommittee, told
There also is a possibility that Ferranti,
Most of this has been spent on ad-
AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY
through government motivation, may be
vanced computer systems, radars and
that he has talked to Air Force officials
forced into a merger with either the Ples-
navigation equipment for aircraft.
Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 23, 1974
27
REPRINT FROM
Aviation Week
& Space Technology
August 12. 1974
Volume 101. Number 6
Editor-in-Chief: Robert B. Hotz
ENFORCER
Cavaller/Piper Enforcer close-support aircraft, which would be produced by Lockheed-Georgia under an option, carries a mix of weapons on
its 10 ordnance stations. Note the large over-the-wing exhaust port for the Avco Lycoming T55-L-9 gas turbine engine. The small residual
thrust exhausted provides a low infrared signature for heat-seeking missiles. Muzzles of six .50-cal. guns are barely visible in the wings.
Flight Test Program Sought for Enforcer
Bv Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.
[H.A.S.C. No. 93-66]
BRIEFING ON THE MILITARY AIRLIFT
CAPABILITY DURING THE MIDDLE
EAST CONFLICT
AND
THE ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1974
FORD
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-531
WASHINGTON : 1974
[H.A.S.C. No. 93-66]
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 BRIEFINGS ON THE MILITARY AIRLIFT
CAPABILITY DURING THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT AND THE
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1,
Washington, D.C., Thursday, August 8, 1974.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 2212,
Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Melvin Price (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. The committee will be in order.
The purpose of today's meeting of the subcommittee is twofold.
We will receive a briefing from Mr. Jack Reiter, vice president, World
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1-RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Airways, Inc., concerning some aspects of our military airlift capability
MELVIN PRICE, Illinois, Chairman
during the Mideast conflict.
OTIS G. PIKE, New York
CHARLES S. GUBSER, California
Following Mr. Reiter's presentation, we will receive testimony on
RICHARD H. ICHORD, Missouri
WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, Alabama
ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina
the Enforcer aircraft from Mr. David B. Lindsay, its designer and
FLOYD V. HICKS, Washington
ROBERT PRICE, Texas
developer.
HAROLD RUNNELS, New Mexico
BOB WILSON, California
At that point, the subcommittee will go into executive session since
ANTHONY R. BATTISTA, Professional Staff Member
some performance characteristics of our close air support aircraft may
(II)
be discussed.
Mr. Reiter, will you please begin your presentation.
STATEMENT OF JACK REITER, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY HERB
GREUTER, VICE PRESIDENT AND ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT,
WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.
Mr. REITER. Thank you. We have a short film here, and I would
like to introduce Herb Greuter, the vice president of government
affairs, World Airways, Inc., who is a former MAC airlift officer him-
self, to narrate it.
Mr. PRICE. Welcome to the committee.
Mr. GREUTER. Thank you very much, sir.
The film is a 17-minute film. It depicts one of the operations during
the 12 series of flights operated for the Military Airlift Command
from October 20 to about November 20.
This film was taken by Boeing people on the 10th flight outward and
on the 11th flight returning from Clark.
The film pretty much speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman.
I might add that I was fortunate to have been on the first flight
going out when we started the program not more than 9 days after
the program had been awarded by MAC to us.
Therefore, if there are some questions, I would be happy to answer
them and do my best to do so.
FORD
(1)
2
3
Mr. PRICE. Fine.
The designer/builder of the ENFORCER, publisher David Lindsay of Sarasota,
Mr. REITER. I might add here before it starts, to put this into per-
Florida, has asked to appear before a House Armed Services Subcommittee to
spective, the Arab-Israeli war was on, and as you know, the MAC was
correct untrue statements about the ENFORCER made recently by Air Force
using C-5's and 141's. They were short of airlift. This is airlift we
representatives; this testimony will interest you-as did Lindsay's remarks before
the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee on May 30th.
provided for MAC, cargo airlift, with the Boeing 747-C's in the
Since the misleading information about the ENFORCER was presented to the
Pacific.
House Armed Services Committee, by the way, Mr. Lindsay's patented concept
[Film was shown.]
of firing a 106 mm. recoilless rifle from a wingtip installation he designed especially
for the ENFORCER has been carried out, highly successfully, at China Lake,
Mr. PRICE. Does anyone have any questions?
California (May 30th). This is an aviation first and means the ENFORCER now
Mr. HICKS. It certainly is a pretty airplane, Mr. Chairman.
offers the nation a sure method for the mass destruction of tanks at minimal cost.
Mr. PIKE. Really beautiful airplanes and a really beautiful job, and
(The 106 round will destroy any tank, costs but $70 per round, is proven, tested
I'm only curious over what the cost was per ton-mile.
and carried in the field. The A-10's experimental 30 mm. gun is still a question
Mr. GREUTER. The cost of the CAB established rate which we re-
mark to many.)
The developing scandal about the ENFORCER, and efforts by some in the Air
ceived from MAC as I recall was 8.04 cents a ton-mile.
Force to mislead Congress about it, is one you are necessarily involved in as one
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Runnels.
who writes for newspapers in your state, I strongly urge you to add your demand
Mr. RUNNELS. Mr. Chairman, what was SO important that had to
to that of others now insisting that the Department of Defense order a tri-service
be flown over there and then, some had to be flown back?
flight test of the ENFORCER (built completely with private funds) in the tax-
payers' and the national interest. The ENFORCER can be built for somewhere
You know he took 154,000 pounds over and brought 100,000 pounds
between one-third and one-sixth the cost of the A-10-in comparable numbers.
back. I wonder if you know what the inventory was?
Yours sincerely,
Mr. GREUTER. I'm afraid I can't answer that, sir, as to what the
EDWARD H. SIMS.
[Note: The following were attached to the letter to Mr. Hebert.]
contents of the military cargo was.
Mr. RUNNELS. Did we fly it over SO we would make a test run of
[Reprinted from Congressional Record, July 1, 1974, p. E4415]
what we could do?
HON. LES ASPIN OF WISCONSIN, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GREUTER. Not at all, sir.
Mr. REITER. All this cargo was to be flown to the different air bases
Mr. Aspin. Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon has given Congress contradictory and
and scheduled to be flown before the Israeli-Arab conflict.
misleading information on the capabilities of a new, highly effective jet fighter-the
Enforcer-which is an attractive alternative to A-10 close air-support aircraft.
Mr. RUNNELS. What was in the boxes?
Recently released House Armed Services Committee testimony about the
Mr. REITER. It was the usual military equipment.
Enforcer presented by Air Force Gen. W. J. Evans (USAF DCS/R and D) is SO
Mr. PRICE. The committee will recess for 5 minutes to answer a roll-
misleading and in part, un-true, that I have no choice but to conclude that his
call on an amendment.
actions were deliberate.
Each Enforcer costs slightly more than $1 million while the cost of the A-10 is
The committee will recess for 5 minutes.
$3.4 million per aircraft. Current Air Force plans include a buy of 729 A-10's to
[The committee recessed at 2:18 p.m. and reconvened at 2:30 p.m.]
support ground combat troops at a total cost of approximately $2.4 billion.
Mr. PRICE. The committee will be in order. The committee will re-
Mr. Speaker, General Evans told the House Armed Services Committee on
sume its sitting.
April 5 that "the range of the aircraft-the Enforcer-is limited." But, Mr.
The next witness will be Mr. David B. Lindsay, Jr., to testify on
Speaker, I am publicly releasing an Air Force factsheet on the Enforcer which
shows that its aircraft's range is 3,075 miles-475 miles greater than the range
the Enforcer aircraft.
of the A-10.
Mr. Lindsay, would you come around, please?
General Evans also complained that the Enforcer could not take off from short
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.
runways. The same Air Force factsheet shows that the Enforcer needs only 1,100
Mr. PRICE. At the outset of these hearings we will put in the record
feet to take off compared to the A-10's 3,020 feet.
I am publicly releasing a detailed summary of all the major contradictions in the
a letter received from Mr. Lindsay and directed to the chairman in
various Air Force presentations on Enforcer, including the aircraft's speed, landing
connection with the request for these hearings.
distance, and number of bomb stations. With SO much contradictory evidence
[The following information was received for the record:]
produced by the Air Force, it seems clear that the case of the Enforcer and its
rival, the A-10, should be reviewed. One possibility would be for the Air Force
to conduct a flyoff between the two planes to determine which one, given its cost
EDITOR'S Copy SYNDICATE,
would be the most effective. Since each A-10 is three times more expensive than
Orangeburg, S.C., July 5, 1974.
the Enforcer, the Enforcer seems to be an attractive alternative to the A-10. In
Congressman F. EDWARD HÉBERT,
fact, I think it may be difficult for the Air Force to prove that the A-10 is three
House Office Building,
times better than the Enforcer.
The Capitol, Washington, D.C.
The Enforcer which is a single-engine jet prop, was developed by Florida
DEAR CONGRESSMAN HÉBERT: As a member of a committee responsible to the
publisher David Lindsay. Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements recently
taxpayers for defense spending, I know you'll be interested in the enclosed exposure
said that the Enforcer had "met the general performance claims made by the
of an effort to mislead Congress and the American people.
offeror.". Mr. Clements' statement further confuses the issue because Lindsay
Congressman Les Aspin shows quite clearly that some in the Air Force are
has claimed that the Enforcer has a maximum speed of 403 knots per hour-
grossly misleading members of congressional committees about the performance
faster than the A-10-while the Air Force says the Enforcer flies 330 knots per
of the A-10 and ENFORCER close support aircraft-to justify lavish spending
hour-slower than the A-10.
in behalf of a premature, even reckless, decision to buy the A-10.
The only way for the Congress to determine the facts is to order a complete
series of flight tests for the Enforcer and compare it to the A-10.
4
5
As many of my colleagues know, Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger has
This story is unique; the Enforcer represents-for the first time in
suggested that the Pentagon should buy cheaper, more simple weapons. The
Enforcer may just fit the bill for a highly effective and relatively cheap aircraft.
the history of the Defense Department-a complete aircraft weapons
The Air Force's contradictions follow:
system designed, built, and tested without any Government funding
whatsoever.
AIR FORCE CONTRADICTIONS
Range
The Enforcer is a one-man high, one-man wide, single engine,
conventional gear, low-wing aircraft, made entirely of standard air-
Air Force Statement: "The range of the aircraft is limited." (Gen. Evans, House
Armed Services Subcommittee, April 5, 1974.)
craft aluminum and the world's most effective composite armor.
Contradiction: Enforcer range is greater (3075 miles) compared to A-10's (2600
I have some profile drawings of this aircraft that might be helpful
miles). (Air Force Fact Sheet, June, 1974.)
to you. Mr. Sims will pass them out to you.
Survivability
It has 10 underwing weapons stations and 6 internal 50-caliber
Air Force Statement: Q. Does it (Enforcer) have less survivability than the A-7?
machineguns and is essentially a platform to deliver ordnance. Senator
A: I would say yes. (Gen. Evans, House Armed Services Subcommittee, April 5,
Thomas McIntyre has called it a flying arsenal. Its unrefueled range
1974.)
or loiter is greater than that of any comparable aircraft. Its speed
Contradiction: Detailed study by Joint Technical Co-Ordinate Group of the
Naval Air Systems Command reveals that the Enforcer is less vulnerable to 23 mm,
range is 80 to more than 400 knots-which makes it, incidentally,
57 mm and SA7 missiles than A-7. (DDR & E Fact Sheet, June 1974).
capable of both faster and slower speeds than the Air Force's proposed
Take-off
close support aircraft, the A-10.
Air Force Statement: "The ability to take off from unimproved short strips with
I mention that to prove, gentlemen, I think we are in the right
heavy bomb load is extremely limited." (Gen. Evans, House Armed Services
speed regime. Some people suggested more speed.
Subcommittee, April 5, 1974).
You may wonder why an artillery officer of World War II, a news-
Contradiction: Enforcer take-off distance (at full weight) is 1100 ft. compared to
3020 ft. for A-10. (Air Force Fact Sheet, June, 1974).
paper publisher for the past quarter century, is here discussing a close-
support aircraft weapons system.
Maximum speed
To explain as briefly as possible, I have been a pilot since 1941. In
Air Force Statement: Enforcer's maximum speed is 330 knots-slower than the
A-10. (Air Force Fact Sheet, June, 1974).
1957, I purchased the first of a number of F-51D Mustangs which had
Contradiction: Enforcer's maximum speed is 403 knots-faster than the A-10
remained in service from World War II until that year. The Mustang
maximum speed of 390 knots. (David Lindsay, Enforcer Developer).
has impressed all who flew it with its remarkable range and overall
Landing distance
performance, and how forgiving it is to pilots with limited experience.
Air Force Statement: Landing distance is 3000 ft. for the Enforcer at maximum
My company, Cavalier Aircraft, began rebuilding and improving
weight-longer than the A-10's of 2140 ft. (Air Force Fact Sheet, June 1974).
Mustangs for the civilian market.
Contradiction: At normal landing weight Enforcer needs a shorter runway (880
ft.) compared to 1050 ft. for A-10. (Data provided by Air Force Office of Legisla-
LIMITATIONS OF JET AIRCRAFT
tive Affairs, June 1974).
Engine
The Air Force, and we at Cavalier, soon learned that many countries
Air Force Statement: Enforcer will be powered by a 2445 horsepower engine. (Air
were unable to achieve effective military operations using only jet
Force Fact Sheet, June 1974).
aircraft.
Contradiction: Enforcer will be powered with 2950 horsepower engine. (David
Lindsay,-Enforcer Developer).
Pure jets had, and still have, certain disadvantages which make
Bomb stations
them inherently less than ideally suited for close air support work.
Air Force Statement: Enforcer has 6 bomb stations. (Air Force Fact Sheet, June
Not the least of these is a high rate of fuel consumption at low altitude
1974).
and at reduced speeds necessary for precise delivery of ordnance very
Contradiction: Enforcer has 10 bomb stations (From Air Force Office of Legisla-
close to our own troops.
tive Affairs, June 1974).
Another is an excessively large turn radius. Another is show accel-
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Lindsay, would you proceed?
eration. Also, with their characteristically small nosewheel, or wheels,
Mr. LINDSAY. All right, sir.
they are unable to operate from unpaved, rocky, or muddy fields.
I have a prepared statement and I will skip, of course, the personal
In passing I might mention I developed one Enforcer with a nose-
comments and background.
wheel but found when operating on a muddy or soft field as might be
encountered, say, in the central plains of Europe, the nosewheel
STATEMENT OF DAVID B. LINDSAY, DESIGNER AND DEVELOPER
would dig in and we are out of business.
OF THE ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
They have difficulty conducting sustained maneuvers or searches at
low altitude in difficult, mountainous terrain, or under low ceilings.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate this op-
Many friendly foreign countries, particularly in South America and
portunity today to correct misstatements which have recently been
Asia, have a very limited number of paved, jet-capable fields, and vast
made before this committee about a privately designed and produced
areas to be kept under surveillance; their only feasible operational
weapons system, and its advantages and potential for close air support,
technique is for their aircraft to land, refuel, and re-arm on a pasture,
which I feel relates critically to the Nation's defense.
road, or clearing.
7
6
Around this engine I designed a new aircraft and built a flying
Recognizing this, the U.S. Air Force requested Cavalier to build a
prototype, retaining, of course, proven features of the F-51, utilizing
number of advanced F-51's, known as Cavalier Mustangs, for the
components from other aircraft, which, by the way, include the
military assistance program. A classic example is Indonesia, a nation
Cessna Citation, the A-1-Skyraider, and others, new avionics systems,
of some 3,000 islands, spanning 3,000 miles of the Pacific, which today
and newly manufactured parts based on my own patents. The first
is still operating Cavalier Mustangs-despite the discovery of oil,
prototype, for reasons of economy, was therefore a composite. Pro-
I'm respecting that-recently supplied by the U.S. Air Force—
duction aircraft would, of course, be of completely new manufacture.
although it possesses Russian, American, and Australian pure jets,
And I should stress there, I think, that not one single F-51 Mustang
which are unable to perform many of the Mustangs' missions.
tool would be used in building the Enforcer. It would be a new aircraft.
GENESIS OF ENFORCER
PIPER AND PAVE COIN
Cavalier never achieved profitability under these military contracts
In 1970 I sold the new Enforcer project to Piper Aircraft Co. for a
but the experience proved invaluable. United States and foreign
modest down payment, and additional funds to come from aircraft
pilots sent to Cavalier were recently experienced in combat. Their
produced and sold in the future.
advice and realistic concept of an ideal close air support machine
While still in the process of moving parts from Cavalier to Piper,
convinced me I could build a superior state-of-the-art weapons
we received a request from the Air Force to participate in a completely
system for close air support, utilizing a number of my own original
unfunded project open to all the aircraft industry called Pave Coin.
patents for simplified aircraft construction and weapons systems
The purpose was to select a close air support for the Vietnamization
and weapons systems control.
program and to replace the A-1 Skyraider.
In the early seventies Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard,
In reliance on the clearly stated intent of the Air Force to select
in a widely applauded move, challenged private companies to initiate
and procure aircraft in at least the minimum quantities set forth in
prototype efforts at their own expense and this encouraged me in my
the request for proposal, we immediately accelerated to a 7-day
efforts.
overtime schedule. Piper spent well over $1 million to prepare hundreds
In speaking of close air support I am not discussing interdiction,
of pages of specifications and to flight-qualify the Enforcer for Pave
deep strike, or long-range bombing missions. I am speaking of close
Coin. This included flight tests for weapons separations and weapons
air support as defined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff dictionary as follows:
"Air attacks against hostile targets which are in close proximity to
suitability. In August 1971, the Enforcer was flown at Piper's expense to Eglin
friendly forces and which require detailed integration of each air
Air Force Base. For all the time it was in Air Force custody, it per-
mission with the fire and movement of those forces."
formed all flight and weapons tests, by day and at night, with out-
It might be put in more "lay" language by saying you have to slow
standing operational results and a remarkable record of zero main-
up and get close enough and see what the fellow's suit is and what his
tenance.
face looks like before releasing your ordnance. You may have to jetti-
As no other competing aircraft actually flew the test missions,
son ordnance to keep from tearing up your aircraft.
successfully, we fully expected an order for the minimum requested
quote of 400 aircraft, at Piper's offered flyaway price of $0.61 million
FIRST PROTOTYPE
each. But no selection or purchase of anyone's aircraft ever resulted
from this operation. All of the companies participating lost their
Most combat officers whose ideas I sought agreed the jetprop, or
investment.
turboprop as it's also called, is the ideal propulsion system for close
FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS
air support.
I built my first prototype around a Rolls-Royce Dart commercial
Despite this disappointment, we remained convinced of the critical
turboprop engine, and though we were able to prove the soundness of
need for a specialized close support, forward deployable aircraft. And
the concept, the engine was too large and too lightly stressed for
we continued to improve the Enforcer's performance, weapons
combat.
capability, armor, and survivability to cope with the increasing
I finally decided on the Lycoming T-55-L-9, a variant of the basic
lethality of the close air support environment, brought about by
engine used today in all Army and Marine CH-47 Chinook heli-
striking advances in Russian radar-directed automatic weapons and
copters. (The difference between the helicopter engine and ours is
heat-seeking missiles, more specifically the SA-7, and others which
merely that the helicopter engine drives a gear train for the rotor-
I'm sure we don't know about yet.
propeller above while ours turns a gearbox for a forward propeller.)
The most recently added innovation is now being tested by the
After a nationwide search, I located a T-55-L-9 lying unused at
Marine Corps at China Lake. It utilizes my concept and patents for
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, unairworthy and stored in an
mounting the 106 millimeter recoilless cannon, standard weapon of
abandoned wind tunnel. After 8 months of legal effort, I finally nego-
the Army and Marine Corps infantry against tanks, on the Enforcer's
tiated a lease with the U.S. Air Force on this engine, prorated on its
wing tips. I think this is a promising approach but only flight and
full new acquisition cost to the Government. Lycoming, the engine's
firing tests with actual Enforcers will provide us the facts.
manufacturer, demonstrated faith in the Enforcer program by over-
39-531-74-2
hauling it to airworthy condition at its own expense.
8
9
Incidentally, gentlemen, in your blue folders there is a reproduction
INSURANCE THROUGH NUMBERS
of a page from current Aviation Week showing that weapon being
fired in flight from a Cavalier Mustang. It is not an Enforcer, but its
Even if viewed only as a standby option should present hopes and
geometry is similar enough we decided that was the best way to go in
performance estimates in the close air support weapons field prove
doing what might have been considered a high-risk test.
overly optimistic, the Enforcer offers prudent and economical insur-
It was totally successful.
ance for the Nation.
The first firing of the 106 millimeter was completed earlier this
General George S. Brown points out in a recent, May, issue of
year-history's first from an aircraft. The cost of a 106 round, in-
Air Force magazine that aircraft of "long endurance, high surviva-
cidentally, is only about $70-and there's no question about its
bility, and great firepower" will be needed to "offset the massive
ability to kill any tank. I am sorry I don't have an example of the
numerical armor advantages of the Warsaw Pact compared to NATO".
round here, but it is approximately 4½ inches in diameter. It is a
I believe the Brookings Institute study released last week indicates a
cannon round not a rifle or machinegun round.
3 to 1 tank superiority and 2 to 1 aircraft superiority on the
part of the Warsaw Pact. I have today provided the subcommittee
LOCKHEED AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION
a copy of a recent letter I addressed to Chairman Price, correcting
In August of last year Lockheed Aircraft purchased manufacturing
incorrect Air Force statements about the Enforcer, drafted after a
rights to the Enforcer, lending its considerable high-technology
lengthy meeting with General Borwn's staff.
engineering expertise to the evaluation program then under way by
I want to express my deep appreciation to General Brown, Chair-
the Marine Corps, the Naval Air Systems Command and the Joint
man of the Joint Chiefs, for receiving me on Friday the 19th and
Technical Coordinating Group for Air Survivability, which is made
allowing me to dictate to his own staff the suggested comments and
up of representatives of all the services and analyzes the ability to
corrections and for his having distributed the cover letter to the Air
withstand hits and survive for 5 minutes. This study had been initiated
Force. I'm here because no corrective action to my knowledge has been
by Deputy Secretary of Defense William Clements at the suggestion
taken.
of a number of concerned members of the Appropriations and Armed
Last year in Germany I had the opportunity to discuss this NATO
Services Committees of both Houses.
defense problem with Gen. Guenther Rall and others. They pointed
I had undertaken an effort to acquaint members of both of these
out that it must be assumed all jet-capable airfields are pretargeted
committees of the availability of the Enforcer, and of a disturbing
and that within an hour of a major attack, all airbases in the forward
gap in the air operations spectrum between jet fighters and armed heli-
combat zone will be rendered inoperable. It has been suggested to me
copters. This gap is not officially recognized by the Air Force.
the autobahns could be used. I would like to point out historically
The Air Force remains adamantly dedicated to pure jets for attack
when the Russians make a move the refugees are there in great
aircraft-ruling out utilization of the Enforcer or any other prop-jet-
quantities on autobahns and that the autobahns in comparison to
whatever its merits and advantages.
some of our interstates are not as big and useful as we once thought
them, although they are excellent roads.
SERVICE RIVALRY
A relatively large number of prop-jets, capable of operating from
short and unimproved fields, requiring no external starters or other
And since, under an obsolete agreement between the then Army
support equipment and minimum maintenance, equipped with stand-
and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force continues to retain
off missiles such as Mavericks, 30 mm. gun pods, and 106 mm. re-
responsibility for providing close air support for the Army, this inflex-
coilless cannons, may offer our only aerial weapon capable, under these
ible policy also bars the Army from utilizing fixed-wing, attack prop-
conditions, of effectively assisting NATO ground forces in checking
jets. In my considered opinion, based on years of work in this special-
the tens of thousands of tanks now deployed against them. No matter
ized field, this insistence on jets means the Nation is taking unaccepta-
how capable, a relatively few multi-million dollar aircraft cannot cope
ble security risks in the field of close air support. I might add that a
with numbers and distances involved. As Senator Barry Goldwater
number of Navy officers with whom we have talked feel it is unjustified
said in U.S. News recently:
for the Air Force to object to Army utilization of a forward-deployable
One expensive aircraft may be better than one inexpensive plane, but it is not
aircraft peculiarly adapted to commingling with Army units simply
better than five.
because it is fixed-wing.
You gentlemen already know that the Enforcer will fit inside
It would seem reasonable to consider the inexpensive Enforcer in
NATO's new protective revetments which are 48 feet wide.
a Hi-Lo concept in relation to the A-10 for close air support much as
It is my understanding approximately almost half a billion dollars
the economical light weight fighter is being considerd as a supple-
has been spent building these 48- by 100-foot revetments.
ment to the F-15.
The wingspan of the A-10, for example, is 54 feet.
I might interject here I discussed this with some D.D.R. & E.
The question of numbers and costs is crucial. Lockheed proposed to
people in the last few days and they seem to be interested in this
build 250 Enforcers at $0.76 million per copy. As we understand it,
concept. I hope they will explore it further. The idea being to buy a
the cost of the A-10, for example, is something like $3.4 million, but
number of the less-expensive aircraft to supplement the large bomber-
this is based on a buy of 729. And, we are told it is now unrealistic to
size aircraft now being contemplated.
think the Air Force will have the funds to buy such a quantity. There-
10
11
fore the cost per copy of the A-10 may well be much, much higher than
conclusion-that because there is no sponsoring service, there is
envisioned. On the other hand the Enforcer price is based on a buy of
therefore no "requirement" for the aircraft. We are thus back to
250 copies only, and this could be considerably reduced if a greater
square one-there was no official requirement when our efforts began,
quantity were built-which is highly likely if the aircraft is ever fairly
but a very obvious need. That need becomes more obvious daily as
tested.
studies indicate the necessity of supplementing sophisticated and
FLIGHT TESTS NEEDED
expensive close support systems. We are all acutely conscious of what
Because of the Enforcer's capability and low price, a number of
inflation is doing to everyone's budget.
Members of the Senate and House have persisted in urging the De-
I believe it's going to require from the Congress something more
partment of Defense to conduct operational flight tests with two to
than routine inquiries to the Pentagon to end this calculated pattern
four prototypes. A July letter from five influential Senators requesting
of delay in which the services have been protecting one another's pet
that is provided to you today. These gentlemen represent quite a spec-
projects. In fact, we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that only
trum of political and military opinion. I don't imagine their signatures
strong congressional direction, admittedly an approach Congress
have appeared on very many joint letters. They have not, and we
prefers to avoid, will end this exercise in semantics and produce the
have not, asked that the Enforcer be put into production or into any
factual data and meaningful close support comparisons Congress and
service's inventory. They are seeking meaningful flight tests, the only
the American people are entitled to have.
way to demonstrate the Enforcer concept and capability to the Con-
Recently the Congress has approved $200 million to keep F-111
gress and the Nation. To quote Senator Goldwater again:
production lines open as "insurance" in case the B-1 bomber program
IS canceled.
There is no way a computer can fly an airplane. Someone with eyes and a brain
Surely $6 million to build, test-fly, and demonstrate the new,
has to do that.
economical close-support concept represented by the Enforcer is a
That is in a letter specifically about the Enforcer to us.
reasonable price for insurance that our ground soldiers will have effec-
General George Brown agreed when he said that, after all paper
tive and sufficient close air support, especially now that the Harrier
evaluations, "all we've got is the point at which an experimental test
program just in the last few days has been curtailed, and many con-
pilot has to strap on a piece of hardware, take it into the real world,
tinue to express doubts about the Air Force's ability to solve all of the
apply all his hard-earned knowledge and skill-and tell us what we
A-10's problems and to afford sufficient quantities of them.
really have."
I would like to turn now to more specific corrections of this com-
Last year we seemed very near our flight test goal. Deputy Secretary
mittee's records in the form of incorrect information about the En-
of Defense Clements had ordered a full engineering and survivability
forcer provided the committee by the Air Force.
evaluation, as distinct from flight testing. To avoid disagreement over
I now submit for the record a letter to Chairman Price with analyti-
roles and missions, he asked the Marines to conduct the evaluation.
cal attachments detailing those errors. If I may, I will read that letter,
Mr. Clements told me and others in our meeting that if a full "paper"
dated Tuesday, August 6.
evaluation proved promising, we would then move on to flight tests.
Mr. PRICE. The letter will be included in the record as will any other
Before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee last May,
data you may care to submit.
Marine Commandant Robert Cushman, in answer to Congressman
[The following information was received for the record:]
Robert Sikes' question: "Is this another paper study?" replied "No,
sir; I think we will have to fly it to get all the determinations."
AUGUST 6, 1974.
The evaluation conducted by the Marines, the Naval Air Systems
Hon. MELVIN PRICE,
Command, and Joint Test Coordinating Group for Air Survivability
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee No. 1,
The Capitol, Washington, D.C.
with Air Force participation and Air Force computer usage was cer-
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I deeply appreciate the opportunity of appearing before
tainly a thorough one, consuming more than a year. Opponents
your Committee to point out certain misunderstandings and misinformation
claimed to have discovered one deficiency after another. But the
which have developed concerning my ENFORCER CAS aircraft.
studies disproved all these objections. It's now officially admitted that
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first aircraft weapons system ever de-
the Enforcer will do everything we have claimed.
signed, built, and privately tested without any government funds. As it represents
over six years of work on my part, and substantial expenditures, some from bor-
Lockheed has quoted a flight test package price of $6.1 million for a
rowings, I have no choice but to try to correct misinformation which could gravely
full Milspec engineering program, the existing prototype plus three
damage its chances for acceptance in the U.S. or foreign countries.
more prototypes, company flight tests, and engineering support of
I regret that some have viewed it as a threat and competitor for the A-10. I de-
military flight tests. Somehow, however, opponents have intervened to
signed it specifically as an A-1 Skyraider replacement, with Vietnamization and
Foreign Sales or MAP aid in mind.
block a favorable decision.
After it was not purchased following the abortive PAVE COIN exercise, I con-
tinued to improve its weapons capability, and to harden it with additional armor.
THE NO REQUIREMENT BARRIER
I also designed corrections for the few adverse comments arising from PAVE
COIN.
We are at the point today where the Pentagon has been forced to
In the spring of 1973, Deputy Secretary Clements and Dr. Foster ordered a full
analysis and evaluation, after which I expected operational flight testing if the
admit that the Enforcer will do all we have claimed, and at a very low
paper evaluation were favorable.
acquisition cost. The bar now to operational flights tests is a remarkable
12
13
The thorough analysis results confirmed my best hopes and claims, but so far no
General EVANS. We actually flew the aircraft 2 or 3 years ago when we were
flight tests have been requested by any Service. Without such tests, our ability to
looking at it for possibly giving it to small countries like Vietnam, Taiwan, Cam-
interest the foreign market is thwarted.
bodia, for close support work. In evaluating it, we determined it was not suitable.⁶
I sincerely feel that the ENFORCER might well be looked at in the HI-LO
I can expand on that for the record.
concept in relations to the A-10 or Harrier, much as the Air Combat Fighter
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Will you check as thoroughly as you can, and see how
(Light Weight Fighter) is being considered as a supplement to the F-15. However,
thoroughly the Air Force has looked at it in the close-support role?
I am really only seeking to have the aircraft operationally flight tested, once and
General EVANS. Yes, sir.
for all, to determine its potential.
[The following information was received for the record:]
A number of Senators and Congressmen of all persuasions feel that the six mil-
"The Piper-Enforcer aircraft was one of five candidate aircraft evaluated by the
lion dollar package offered by the presently proposed builder-Lockheed-Geor-
Air Force during the summer of 1971 under Project PAVE COIN. Two of these
gia-is inexpensive insurance for the American public if some projects do not meet
aircraft, the Piper-Enforcer and the American Jet Industries/Aeronca-Super
full expectations, or if there is, as I believe, a need to fill the spectrum between the
Pinto, were the subject of flight evaluations at Eglin Air Force Base during
armed helicopter and large jets.
August 1971, in addition to paper evaluations. The Cessna A-37B and two ver-
The Lockheed package proposed to NASC includes four fly-away prototypes,
sions of the North American Rockwell OV-10 were evaluated on paper only, as
full engineering review and company MIL-SPEC flight tests, and support of Tri-
these aircraft are in the inventory and have been extensively tested in combat.
Service flight tests.
The purpose of the evaluations was to determine each aircraft's suitability to per-
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity of bringing this situation to the
form MAP country Light Strike Aircraft (LSA) missions.
Committee's attention.
"From an operational standpoint the Enforcer was judged to be marginally suit-
With highest regards,
able; however, if roll response and dive speed control deficiencies were corrected,
Respectfully yours,
it promised to be a suitable airplane for the LSA role. But, SO were the other candi-
DAVID B. LINDSAY, Jr.,
dates, after their operational deficiencies were corrected.'
Enforcer Designer/Test Pilot.
"From a technical standpoint the Enforcer required considerable engineering
effort to remedy roll performance deficiencies, incorporate an effective speed brake,
ATTACHMENT I
incorporate redundant features in the flight control system, redesign the cockpit and
validate the structure.⁸
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
"Before the Air Force could make an assessment of the Enforcer for a close air
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
support application using current CAS simulation models, many assumptions
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1,
would have to be made on the projected capabilities of this aircraft. The Enforcer
(RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT),
lacks the sophisticated armor and fuel protection necessary to operate in the European
Washington, D.C., Friday, April 5, 1974.
threat environment. It also lacks range loiter payload capabilities of the other candidate
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2212, Rayburn
aircraft. Finally, an electro-optical display and carriage capability compatible for
House Office Building, the Honorable Melvin Price (chairman of the subcommittee)
use of the Maverick missile would be required. Installing these features on such an
presiding.
aircraft for the CAS mission was found to be imprudent. Hence, the Air Force has
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. The committee will be in order.
opted not to evaluate this aircraft further."
Mr. Secretary, we had reached page 172, or page 171, the flight simulator
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Ichord.
development. I think we can skip over that.
Mr. ICHORD. Is it not unusual when we are going to have a competition between
The next is air combat fighter, page 173.
the A-10 and the A-7, an airplane that is already in inventory? Have we ever
General EVANS. Yes, sir.
done that before?
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Secretary, people have been in contact with the
General EVANS. Not that I recall, sir. And I think that is a misnomer, because
committee in reference to an aircraft known as the Enforcer. Could you discuss
it indicates there will be a winner and a loser.
the possibility of the use of the Enforcer versus the A-10 in close air support?
Mr. ICHORD. You say in the backup book that you will have a competition.
General EVANS. Yes, sir. That indicates a winner and a loser. I don't think that
STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER B. LaBERGE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
applies to the A-10 and A-7 evaluation.
OF THE AIR FORCE (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)-Continued
We like the A-7. It is one of our best interdiction aircraft. So even if the A-10
should show up better than the A-7 that does not mean the A-7 is a loser and that
Dr. LABERGE. I would like General Evans to speak on that.
we don't want it. We are saying we don't think it is optimized for the close-support
General EVANS. I am generally familiar with the Enforcer. It is basically an
mission.
F or P-51 design, updated. The Air Force as well as other services have looked at
To answer directly, I do think it is unusual; and the only reason for the flyoff
that aircraft as a possible export aircraft for small countries, to provide them with
is at the urging of the Congress we are flying a prototype version of the A-10
close air support capability.
against an aircraft that has been in the operational inventory for some years.
Recently we updated our previous evaluation of the aircraft, as it had been
Mr. ICHORD. How many A-7's do we have in the Air Force now?
mentioned to us that it might be a competitor to the A-10 for the close air support
Colonel WALTER. At the end of 1974 there will be about 376 aircraft in the
mission. The airplane does not have the survivability, first of all, sir, that we feel is
inventory.
necessary in a close air support airplane, where it will be exposed to air-to-air as well
Mr. ICHORD. 376?
as surface-to-air missiles.¹
Colonel WALTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ICHORD. Does it have less survivability than the A-7?
Mr. ICHORD. Of course the A-10 has a lot more loiter time than the A-7, doesn't
General EVANS. I would say yes, and definitely less than the A-10. The range of the
it?
aircraft is limited, the ability to take off from unimproved short strips with heavy
General EVANS. Yes, sir.
bomb loads is extremely limited. Its comparison with the A-10 in a loiter capability
Mr. ICHORD. It will have a heads-up display system in it?
indicates that it is way behind 34 that aircraft.
General EVANS. Yes; although not as sophisticated as the one in the A-7.
In other words, in every area where we are interested in optimizing the A-10
Mr. ICHORD. It will not have the sophisticated navigational and bombing
for close air support-maneuverability, loiter capability, maintainability, surviva-
equipments, either?
bility, ability to operate off unimproved strips-it just does not measure up to our
General EVANS. That is correct. It will not.
standards, sir.5
Mr. ICHORD. What is the A-10 designed to cost? About $1.5 million?
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Did the Air Force ever consider testing one of them or
General EVANS. $1.7 million average unit flyaway for 600 aircraft in 1970
looking at it firsthand in operation?
dollars is the design-to-cost estimate for the aircraft.
15
14
General EVANS. The Air Force did not think SO.
Mr. ICHORD. What is the cost of the A-7 coming off the line now?
Mr. BATTISTA. Do you think so?
General EVANS. The A-7 is-let me give you the numbers in then-year dollars,
General EVANS. No, I don't think SO.
which may be more meaningful.
Secretary LABERGE. I think if you ask is it important to convince the Members
The average unit flyaway of the A-10 is $2.4 million. The A-7 is $2.67 million
of Congress by a test that they believe in, to that extent I think it is important.
average, based upon the same quantity of aircraft. The estimated unit flyaway
The Congress decided it wanted it, and I think we want to conduct it in a fair
price for A-7's being procured in 1974 is $2.9 million.
way; and in making sure it is fair it gets to be fairly expensive.
Mr. ICHORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hope we don't have to do this any more times than are really necessary,
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Do you have any questions, Mr. Battista?
because it is expensive, and it causes a delaying process.
Mr. BATTISTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BATTISTA. With regard to the Enforcer-and I know you are not in a popu-
With regard to your remarks on the Enforcer, General, you indicated that its takeoff
larity contest-I quote a newspaper article from the Apalachicola Times:
capability is less than that of the A-10. We have some documentation here, and please
remember that it is from the manufacturer, but in any event, he claims that the Enforcer
CONGRESS LOSES WEAPONS FIGHT
in fact can take off on shorter, muddier fields where the A-10 cannot.
Is there any merit to that?
A WEAPONS MYSTERY? SENATORS THWARTED? AIR FORCE BEHAVIOR?
General EVANS. I think you would probably have to look at the bomb load. I was
OPPORTUNITY LOST?
thinking of maximum gross weight takeoff.
In the first place, the Enforcer cannot carry the bomb load of the A-10.
"WASHINGTON, D.C.-Behind closed doors in the Pentagon in recent days the
Mr. BATTISTA. That is correct.
Air Force and others have managed to prevent issuance of an order to test a
With respect to survivability, and this is not the manufacturer talking here, this is
promising, really inexpensive close air support weapon developed wholely with
the Navy's evaluation, they said they were conducting a survivability assessment, and
private funds."
they believe this turboprop aircraft could provide an economic cost-payload index
And it goes on and on.
and is attractive for close air support mission, provided their slower speeds are ac-
Looking at a comparison parameter by parameter, it would indicate that there
ceptable.
is a basis for concern.
What is the comparison of the speed of the A-10, compared to the Enforcer?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave it at that.
General EVANS. I would have to check, the brochure. I think it is less than the
A-10; somewhat less.
ATTACHMENT II
A-10 is redlined at [deleted] knots. I would imagine the Enforcer is close to that, top
speed.¹¹
[From Aerospace Daily, July 3, 1974]
When you talk about survivability I think you have to compare it with some
ENFORCER DEBATE: AF TURNS THUMBS DOWN ON FURTHER TESTS
other aircraft. I am saying that the A-10 is much more survivable than the Enforcer. 12
Mr. BATTISTA. The manufacturer's concern is the heat-seeking missiles, and the
The Air Force sharply rejected a demand by Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) that the
Enforcer has a low IR silhouette; considering the fact you have a prop on there that
Enforcer, a turboprop modification of the North American P-51 1a be given further
will enhance its radar cross sectional area; so it does depend on what you are
consideration for the close air support role in competition with the Fairchild
addressing.
Industries A-10.
But there have been claims made in terms of performance.
Aspin, a member of the Senate [sic] Armed Services Committee, had urged that
What would be your feeling toward a flyoff of this aircraft?
Congress order flight testing of the Enforcer and compare its performance with
General EVANS. I would be against it. 13
that of the A-10 as "the only way to determine the facts."
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. For what reason?
The Air Force replied by quoting Chief of Staff Gen. George S. Brown who told a
General EVANS. We structured the A-X program to determine in competition what
congressional committee: "I personally would not be a party to asking an American
aircraft should best meet the close air support requirements of the U.S. Air Force.
pilot to fly it (the Enforcer) in the defenses that they are going to be exposed to should
We set up certain specifications for that aircraft. We opened it up to competition, and
they ever have to go to war again."
Fairchild and Northrop were the two contractors selected. We flew off in a competitive
Aspin charged that the Pentagon had given Congress "contradictory and mis-
prototyping phase the A-10 against the A-9, which was the Northrop airplane. The
leading information" on the capabilities of the Enforcer, which is backed by a group
A-10 won that competition. With the approval of Congress we went ahead into engineer-
headed by editor/ publisher David G. Lindsay Jr. of Sarasota, Fla. Aspin claimed that
ing development of the A-10.
the Enforcer would cost slightly more than $1 million each while the A-10 unit
The Congress directed that we institute a flyoff between the A-10 and the A-7. We
cost is set at $3.4 million.
are doing that starting in approximately 2 weeks. That well be done before we continue
Replying to Aspin's call for full-scale tests, the Air Force noted that the Enforcer
with the engineering development of the A-10.
was evaluated during the Pave Coin project in 1971. And, according to testimony
Now, we could continue to fly the A-10 off against aircraft like the Enforcer, and I
before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year, Lt. Gen. William
am sure we could come up with other airplanes the manufacturer claims do a good job
Evans, chief of research and development, said "from an operational standpoint
in close support. I don't think it is appropriate. It costs money. And I would like to
Enforcer was judged to be marginally suitable; however, if roll response and dive
know the reason behind spending money to fly the A-10 against the Enforcer.14
speed control deficiencies were corrected, it promised to be a suitable airplane for the
Mr. BATTISTA. Would it make better sense to fly the A-10 against the A-7
light strike aircraft role. But SO were the other candidates (American Jet In-
than it would against the Enforcer?
dustries/Aeronca Super Pinto, Cessna A-37B and Rockwell OV-10) after their op-
General EVANS. I think so, yes.
erational deficiencies were corrected.
Mr. BATTISTA. What do you expect to learn from the flyoff, since you have SO
"From a technical standpoint," Evans testified, the Enforcer required consider-
many subsystems missing on the A-10? What will you learn specifically from this
able engineering effort to remedy roll performance deficiencies, incorporate an effective
$5 million flyoff that you do not already know?
speed brake, incorporate redundant features in the flight control system, redesign the
General EVANS. I don't recognize that price.
cockpit³a and validate the structure."
Mr. BATTISTA. That was the price we got from General Starbird. I believe the
Air Force contribution is on the order of $2 million; but the total is $5 million.
LISTS DRAWBACKS OF CAS ENFORCER
General EVANS. I see.
I think we will get a feeling for the attributes of the A-10 over the A-7.
He went on to say that "Before the AF could make an assessment of the En-
Senator Cannon said he wanted to get the opinion of operational-ready pilots
forcer for a close air support application using current CAS simulation models,
firsthand on how they felt about the two aircraft. We will find out from them how
many assumptions would have to be made on the projected capabilities of the aircraft.⁴
the aircraft reacts under low-ceiling conditions, its maneuverability.
Mr. BATTISTA. Do you need a flyoff to determine those factors?
1-14 The above footnotes refer to portions of the analysis sheet presented by Mr. Lindsay. See p. 17.
39-531-74-3
16
17
"The Enforcer lacks the sophisticated armor and fuel protection necessary to operate
I think perhaps I can pass the letter, since you have that copy,
in the European threat environment. It also lacks range/loiter/payload capabilities
of the other candidate aircraft. 5a Finally an electro-optical display and carrier capa-
each of you.
bility compatible for use of the Maverick missile would be required. Installing these
I do express the reason I feel I have to clarify it, because it represents
features on such aircraft for the CAS mission was found to be imprudent."
6 years of my life and quite a bit of investment. But the Air Force
Aspin, in his statement, characterized Evans' testimony as 'so misleading and,
in appearing here on April 5, which we didn't learn about until some-
in part, untrue, that I have no choice but to conclude that his actions were de-
what later, made some rather gross misstatements. It was General
liberate."
But as a result of the recently completed tests at Fort Riley, Kans., the AF
Evans, Chief of R. & D. And I have attached an analysis sheet. I put
has not changed its mind, saying the A-10 was developed "specifically to provide
a number beside his statements in your folder, and then I have put
close air support for ground forces and this design includes recent technology while
my April 5 rebuttal.
the Enforcer aircraft is based on technology more than 30 years old." 7a
It also denied it had furnished Congress misleading information,8a as alleged by
[The following information was received for the record:]
Aspin. In the "principal factor in effective close air support-lethality" the new plane
ANALYSIS OF USAF STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS, APRIL 5, 1974, AND TO AEROSPACE
is equipped with a 30 mm rapid fire cannon "which is capable of killing tanks,"
DAILY, JULY 3, 1974
while the Enforcer has 50 caliber machine guns "which are ineffective against tanks
Attached to this analysis is a copy of testimony given before the House Armed
and other armored vehicles." 9a
Services Subcommittee No. 1 on 5 April 1974 by Lt. General W. D. Evans, and
The A-10 also has heavy armor plating and redundant systems 10a "which will
also a copy of an article in Aerospace Daily for 3 July 1974, in which Air Force
continue to operate despite an aircraft hit by enemy fire" for survivability on
spokesman rebut statements made to the Congress by Representative Aspin of
the battlefield and "the store station of the A-10 permits it to carry a significant
Wisconsin.
amount of countermeasures against defenses which cannot be accommodated on the
In the margin of the testimony, I have marked numbers for convenience in re-
Enforcer." 11a
ferencing.
The A-10, in fact, the rebuttal continued, "is capable of carrying up to eight
In Reference 1, General Evans states, "The airplane does not have the surviv-
tons of conventional ordnance. The Enforcer's maximum ordnance load is 5,480
ability we feel is necessary in a close air support airplane, where it will be ex-
pounds. The A-10 will also carry the Maverick air-to-ground missile 12a which has
posed to air-to-air as well as surface-to-air missiles."
proven to be a highly effective stand-off weapon against armored vehicles and other
FACT: The analysis by the NASC and the Joint Test Coordinating Group for
hardened targets."
Air Survivability completed earlier this year rates the Enforcer as one of the two
Also the A-10's avionics system "permits the use of laser and electro-optically
least vulnerable aircraft in the world (The other is the A-10). It has more armor
guided bombs which the Enforcer would not handle. 13a
per pound of air frame weight than any other aircraft, is a very small target, has
The enforcer, however, has a ferry range of 3075 miles, 475 more than the A-10,
360° cockpit visibility from the horizontal, and the capability of turning into at-
the service conceded. But if the planes are compared in combat configuration "the
tacking aircraft to defend itself with its guns or with missiles such as the Side-
picture is dramatically different. The A-10 can carry over 9500 pounds of ordnance
winder.
250 miles and loiter for two hours. The range of the Enforcer, based on contractor
In Reference2, General Evans states, The range of the aircraft is limited. "
furnished data, is limited when carrying a useful ordnance load. With 4760 pounds
FACT: The range of the Enforcer, unrefueled, is longer than any aircraft in its
of ordnance, the Enforcer's range is 119 miles with a 15-minute 14a, 15a loiter time."
category, including the A-10.
Takeoff distance of both planes is the same with similar external loads, the AF said.
In Reference 3, the General states, " the ability to take off from unimproved
The answer did not address Aspin's claim that Enforcer would cost slightly
short strips with heavy bomb loads is extremely limited. FACT: The DOD/
more than $1 million while the A-10 is running $3.4 million each. And he sug-
NASC analysis just completed confirms the Enforcer's ability to take off with a
gested a flyoff, commenting "I think it may be difficult for the AF to prove that
full load from unimproved short fields on a standard day in 2900 feet, as against
the A-10 is three times better than the Enforcer."
3850 feet for the A-10 on hard surface.
Reference 4, the General states that "its loiter capability is well behind the
ATTACHMENT III.
A-10." FACT: The Enforcer can loiter burning as little as 550 pounds per hour of
fuel, and it has 2800 pounds of internal fuel. It also has six under wing wet stations
Capt. M. W. Townsend, USN
should drop tanks be necessary.
OSD/DDR&E (Tactical Warfare Program)
Reference 5: General Evans, in this paragraph, attacks the Enforcer's ma-
Assistant Director, Air Warfare
neuverability, loiter capability, maintainability, survivability, ability to operate
The Pentagon-Room 3E1047
off unimproved strips. FACT: The DOD analysis shows these items referenced to
Mr. PRICE. We have a rollcall vote on the House floor, SO the com-
be the strongest points of the Enforcer-and superior to more sophisticated and
mittee will suspend for 15 minutes and then return for the questioning
expensive aircraft.
Reference 6: General Evans states that when the aircraft was flown in 1971 when
of the witness.
a Vietnamization plane was sought, " In evaluating it, we determined it was not
Mr. LINDSAY. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Price.
suitable." FACT: The Enforcer in actual flight exceeded all the requirements of
[The subcommittee recessed at 3:02 p.m., and reconvened at 3:14
PAVE COIN, except the technical specification for visibility over the nose.
References 7, 8, and 9 were "submitted for the record" after General Evans'
p.m.]
testimony, and contain a number of misleading statements, including an indication
Mr. PRICE. The committee will be in order.
that redundant control system factors are not included, which the analysis shows
The committee will resume its business at this sitting.
to be an incorrect statement. He also says that "redesign of the cockpit" is neces-
Mr. Lindsay, in your letter to. me which you mentioned in your
sary. The cockpit includes a Yankee rocket extraction seat, and it meets the re-
statement and Mr. Sim's letter to Chairman Hébert, you asked to
quirements for the Stencil ejection seat now preferred by some of the services.
In Reference 9, the statement is made that the Enforcer "lacks the sophisticated
appear before our committee to correct discrepancies in the Air Force
armor and fuel protection necessary to operate in the European threat environ-
testimony concerning your aircraft.
ment." FACT: The Enforcer's armor is a sophisticated ceramic/composite-fiber
Would you define and clarify the points in question?
which breaks up projectiles and contains spalling. Armor ingrades up to 23mm
defeating in the most crucial areas is provided, and the extent of the armor in-
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.
cludes the entire lower 180° of the engine, the wheel-well area containing the
hydraulic components, and front, rear, side, and bottom protection for the pilot.
14a-15a The above footnotes refer to portions of the analysis sheet of Mr. Lindsay. See p. 17:
19
18
A statement is made that it lacks "range/loiter/payload capabilities of the other
Mr. LINDSAY. I think probably it would be excessive to try to go
candidate aircraft." FACT: The Enforcer's ability in range of action and loiter
through each one, but I think I might take some of the more extreme
at low and medium altitudes is unexcelled.
ones and point them out to you.
Reference 9 also states it would be "imprudent" (Note: it is not said to be im-
In reference No. 1, he says, "We do not feel the aircraft will have the
possible) to install electro-optical display and carriage equipment for the Maverick
missile. FACT: The USAF Weapons Test Center at Eglin AFB has briefed En-
survivability in a close air support environment where it would be
forcer engineers on all necessary information for installing up to six Mavericks on
exposed to air-to-air as well as surface-to-air missiles."
the Enforcer, and the designer has the necessary wiring diagrams for the cockpit
I had worked for the better part of a year with the Naval Air
installation.
Reference 10: Because it does not have a nose wheel to dig-in on muddy fields,
Systems Command and this joint test survivability group, and they
the Enforcer can, and has demonstrated, its ability to take off on shorter, muddier
have not given me a copy of their report, but they did tell me that the
fields than the A-10, which has been restricted to hard-surface.
Enforcer, since it is SO simple and since its armor is SO outstanding, is
Reference 11: General Evans, in referring to the comparative speeds of the two
one of the most survivable planes in the world and one of the two
aircraft, states of the Enforcer, "I think it is less than the A-10." FACT: The
least vulnerable. The other, they feel, is the A-10.
DOD evaluation credits the Enforcer with somewhat higher speeds than the
A-10.
Now, it should be self-evident it is survivable in that it has more
Reference 12: General Evans states, "I am saying that the A-10 is much more
armor per pound of airframe weight than any other aircraft. The
survivable than the Enforcer." FACT: The Enforcer is approximately one-third
empty weight of the airplane is 7,700 pounds, 1,500 pounds of which is
the target size of the A-10. Its engine is heavily armored while the A-10's two
a very fine structural armor which will defeat 23 millimeter shells and
large fan jets have no significant armor protection. The JTCG/Air Report
credits the Enforcer with at least equal survivability to the A-10, even without
which has been extensively tested by the U.S. Navy. And the project
allowance for its smaller size, which would clearly be vitally important in combat.
officer whose name is given to you in the rear of the sheet, Capt. M. W.
Reference 13: General Evans states, "I would be against a fly-off of the
Townsend, in D.D.R. & E., has investigated with the armor manu-
Enforcer," but specific reasons for this position are significantly lacking.
facturer and actual Navy samples and has samples of the armor and
Reference 14: When asked if it would make better sense to fly the A-10 against
the A-7 than the Enforcer, General Evans said, " Yes, I think so." FACT: In
the A-10/A-7 fly-off, eight times as many hits were scored on the A-10 as the A-7.
concurs. The armor is particularly good because it doesn't just stop some of
The A-7 was not designed specifically for close support, but as a deep strike and
the bullets or allow the heat projectiles to cause splinters or spalling
interdiction aircraft. Both the Enforcer and the A-10 have close support as pri-
inside. It is the ceramic face which breaks up the round, and then the
mary design mission.
The Aerospace Daily article repeats many of the incorrect statements of the
fibers behind it contain the rounds to the great appreciation of the
testimony. It goes on to say in Reference 7A that the A-10 design includes
recent technology, while the Enforcer is based on technology more than 30 years
pilot. So I think that statement is clearly not defensible.
old." FACT: Neither aircraft was designed to push the state of the art
Then General Evans states in reference 2, the range of the Enforcer
significantly, but to provide simple, reliable machines for the extremely hazardous
task of close air support. Both aircraft are based on technology that in some cases
is limited. Actually, the range of the Enforcer unrefueled is longer than
goes as far back as the Wright Brothers. The Enforcer contains a number of highly
any aircraft in its category including the A-10. This has been since
advanced but uncomplicated features, patented by David B. Lindsay, including
verified by D.D.R. & E. and Air Force concurs after some prodding by
ordnance controls in the peripheral view of the pilot; engine exhaust system
Congressman Aspin that the actual range is something like 425 miles
which compensates for propeller torque and P-factor and which injects cooling
air after the burner section of the engine to reduce the infra-red signature. It also
more than the A-10.
is equipped with the latest Hamilton-Standard three-spool air conditioning
The General states in reference 3, the ability to take off--
equipment, unexcelled armor, solid state electronics, and other features of current
Mr. PRICE. Was that with a full ordnance mix?
design.
Mr. LINDSAY. Negative, sir. They were both compared as apples
Reference 8A does not cover the problems of the 30mm cannon, and Reference 9
fails to point out the Enforcer's ability to carry a variety of gun pods, CBU,
and apples; namely, in the ferry mode, their longest range, which has
rockets, guided missiles, and guided bombs.
to do with their ability to be operated worldwide without refueling. If
Reference 10A of the news release implies the Enforcer does not have heavy
you can jump from California to Hawaii, you can go anyplace else
armor and Reference 11 erroneously states the Enforcer's store stations cannot
without tankers.
accommodate countermeasures against defenses.
Reference 13A incorrectly states that the Enforcer will not handle laser and
Mr. PRICE. Can you give an estimate of the range with a full
optically guided bombs. FACT: The USAF Weapons Center has stated that the
ordnance mix?
Enforcer will handle any non-nuclear ordnance in the weight category of 1000
Mr. LINDSAY. Well, that is a three-way equation. And I certainly
pounds each or less.
can give you examples of it in almost any configuration you might
Reference 14A says the range of the Enforcer is "limited" when carrying a use-
ful ordnance load." A review of the DOD analysis will show the Enforcer's radius
want. I think it is reasonable, however, for me to admit here and now,
of action, even in the low-low-low mode of attack is superior to any other candidate
quite straightforwardly, that we make no pretense of competing in
aircraft.
load-carrying ability with an aircraft the size of the B-26 bombers.
Reference 15A, the statement that with 4760 pounds of ordnance the Enforcer's
The A-10 is roughly three times as big as the Enforcer, and we feel
range is 119 miles with 15 minutes loiter time is incorrect, as the NASC analysis
shows.
that we can carry all the ordnance load that is necessary for the type
The statement that the takeoff distance of both planes is the same with similar
of standoff weapons which are constantly being improved and
external loads ignores the fact that to achieve an equal takeoff, the A-10 must off-
lightened, and we don't see ourselves as competing with 16,000-pound
load a large percentage of its internal ammunition and its internal fuel to equal
loads of Mark-82 profile iron bombs. We have carried that type load,
the Enforcer with full external and internal ordnance and fuel.
and we dropped it-not that many, but we can carry a sufficient num-
20
21.
ber. We see our role as working upward near the front with the infantry
Mr. PRICE. Would you go ahead with your summary of the different
and carrying standoff weapons that can stand off from the QUAD-
references?
ZUS-23-4 and SA-7.
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.
We don't really believe there is anything you can do with a load
One of the ones which I think is really quite bad is, he says that the
of iron bombs in today's highly lethal close support area in the central
ability to take off from unimproved short strips with heavy bomb
European environment. So I want to make it clear any comparisons
loads is extremely limited.
of gross loads versus the A-10 or any other big jet, we are not making.
Now, my answer to that, which has been verified by D.D.R. & E.
We are claiming we are light and agile and forward-operating. That
is that the DOD-NASC analysis just confirms that the Enforcer's
may sound like an evasion but all these loiter and time missions have
ability to take off with a full load from unimproved short strips on a
to be done on a graph.
standard day is 2,900 feet. That is at 15,500 pounds gross on un-
You pick out how much ordnance you want to carry and read out
improved fields.
how far you can go.
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Battista.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Price.
Mr. BATTISTA. There are three parameters that are of primary con-
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. I would like to ask the same question at that
cern here, loiter, pay load, and range. In your statement you said that
point.
you have been told that there is a requirement for your aircraft, how-
Now, again, you say what, 4,000 pounds is the Enforcer's full load
over, you state that there is no need for it.
under these conditions?
The Air Force does have not only the need for close air support
Mr. LINDSAY. No. The load is a bit higher than that under the
aircraft but a requirement as well. For example, the requirement to
Naval Air Systems Command. They are showing it with an ordnance
go a certain range with a certain payload. Now granted you can't
load of 5,480 pounds.
carry a 16,000-pound ordnance load, but considering these three
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. 5,480 pounds compared with A-10, the 16,000
parameters, what is your range and loiter time with a full Enforcer
pounds?
ordnance load?
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes; that is what I understand they are claiming.
Mr. LINDSAY. Well, with a full Enforcer ordnance load we had used
But they cannot operate off of a forward soft strip, although they
a somewhat lower gross weight than the Naval Air Systems Command
originally had programed it that way. They now do not claim that
has ended up with. But, for example, at 4,100 pounds of ordnance,
ability. The new scenario is they will operate from the rear and come
loitering low at 5,000 feet, we have a mission radius of 200 nautical
forward. My scenario is somewhat different. Since our loiter fuel
miles and that includes in addition 10 minutes of combat at full mili-
consumption is an incredibly low 550 to 600 pounds, we feel that it
tary power, and the remaining fuel for reserve according to Milspec
is not too expensive to keep the aircraft airborne most of the time in
requirements.
the form of flying shotgun or suppressant over what may be moving
Mr. PIKE. What was the loiter time on that? I got the range and the
on the ground.
4,100 pounds of ordnance, but what was the loiter time?
Historically there have been less instances of firings than hits when
Mr. LINDSAY. The loiter time was approximately 2 hours.
the aircraft are there, rather than calling them in late. We would like
Now, I think, sir-let me give you what I think might be a normal
to think we would be very useful in escorting helicopters because we
mix of loads for a close air support mission. We might well carry, say,
can operate at their speed, and we can operate either slowed down
four Maverick missiles, which is 2,000 pounds for the four of them.
with them or we can operate a four-man formation, where there is
And then we might carry, say, four rocket pods, 19 rounds each. I'm
always a gunmount pointed at the ground. Obviously helicopters are
pulling these out of the air. There are any number of pieces of ordnance
limited in the degree of lethality they can take because of the limi-
that could be put on. That would give us another 1,700 pounds. So
tations on armor and their vulnerability in fuel tanks and in rotor
we would be around 3,700 pounds. At that weight we can fly 3,500-mile
blades. There is a big gap between what they can take and what we
radius missions at a loiter of an hour and a half.
can survive in a reasonable percentage of the time.
I might point out that the charts which you are looking at in this
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Has the Enforcer ever taken off from an
1971 book are less than the credit we have been given by the Naval
unprepared field?
Air Assistance Command. You notice that has a takeoff gross of
Mr. LINDSAY. Oh, yes, sir; many times.
14,000 pounds. They have allowed us a takeoff gross of 15,500 pounds.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. What was the performance?
Unfortunately I don't have all of their data here. The project officer
Mr. LINDSAY. The performance was as stated here, sir.
has it. Naval Systems Command has it. I'm sure Air Force has it.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Do you want to go to your next reference?
Marine Command has it. I'm having to work from older data.
Mr. LINDSAY. Stop me if I bring up too many of them.
Loiter would be better than shown in the figures I'm giving you.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Bring up what you consider to be essential in
I might also point out if we are going to talk about the real world,
answering any of the points that were raised by the Air Force.
we might as well talk about comparing airplanes on a dollar-for-
Of course, all of these will be with your material in the record.
dollar basis. If there is a need to carry 16,000 pounds of ordnance, if
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. I appreciate that, Mr. Price.
you will put the same number of dollars into Enforcers as you will
into A-10's we will carry as much or more than they will and also have
the redundancy, in case one gets shot down, to get through.
22
23
Reference 6, General Evans states when the aircraft was flown in
Mr. LINDSAY. There is no canopy available to the best of my
1971 in Pave Coin, "In evaluating it, we determined it was not
knowledge in any aircraft which is actually capable of stopping armor-
suitable." That is simply not a factual statement. The Enforcer in
piercing ammunition.
actual flight exceeded all the requirements of Pave Coin except the
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. What about the sides, when they turn over?
technical specification for visibility over the nose, which I think most
Mr. LINDSAY. We are sort of in the same place as any other plane.
pilots realize is not that all important because you are usually weaving
When you are upside down and someone shoots through the canopy,
around the sky anyway. We actually flew the missions, including a
something is likely to rattle around the cockpit. But we do have the
quite remarkable mission at night with zero moon, in which the Air
same bulletproof windshield, windscreen. We have the latest non-
Force pilot, right out of Tactical Air Command, went out at night,
shattering canopy, the top state of the art, made by Sierason.
called off the flare plane which was a C-130, he called off the forward
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. I thought the A-10 had some kind of an arma-
air control plane. He said, "I will find the target, light the target, and
ment on both sides, more or less like a helicopter.
eliminate the target."
Mr. LINDSAY. I see. I thought you meant up at the level of the
He went out and dropped flares at 4,000 feet, and because of the
pilot's shoulders. We have the same thing. We have side armor, rear
incredible ability of this plane to turn tightly, it will turn at 150 knots
armor, forward armor, and underneath. It is the same bathtub con-
in 800-foot radius, he dropped back under those flares, found the
cept except we think a little more sophisticated in that we did a study
convoy which was the target, and destroyed it, using napalm. And the
of hit probability areas, and used the armor to also armor certain
ground crew said, "Isn't it time to give him a fuel warning?" They
components such as the batteries and the hydraulic fluid and things
said he hasn't started yet. He spent three-quarters of an hour strafing
of that kind.
the area with 50-caliber machineguns.
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. Are your control hydraulic and fuel lines on
There are many things that surprise them; they forget about the
the bottom side?
internal guns. It was a very remarkable mission. That pilot was not
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes.
allowed to write his own flight report. It was written for him at TAC
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. A-10 comes along the top side.
headquarters, and it caused some repercussions.
Mr. LINDSAY. Ours are all in the lower area, concentrated in the
Consequently, D.D.R. & E. made an investigation of Pave Coin, as
wheel-well area. By the way, if the hydraulic system is shot out, you
we did not get a fair report. We actually won it, and no award was
simply pull a release lever and the gear drops by gravity.
made from Pave Coin. Everyone lost, you might say.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. The committee will recess until we make this
The statement is made flatly in references 7, 8, and 9 that the A-10
record vote, and then return.
contains a number of features which we do not, including redundant
Mr. LINDSAY. Thank you.
systems. The fact of the matter is we do have full redundant systems,
[The subcommittee recessed at 3:35 p.m. and reconvened at 3:50
and that is shown in the NASC report that controls are not hydraulic,
p.m.]
they are not pneumatic, they are stainless steel cables, and they are
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. The committee will resume its sitting.
redundant in all axes; and the statement of the NASC, which I don't
Mr. Lindsay, you had just completed your comments on reference 9.
concur with, is they would consider eliminating some of them because
Would you continue from there? I think if we could speed up your
the likelihood of shooting out the cables is SO little.
part of it, then the members I know have some questions they want
I would personally prefer to see them stay in. We do have them, and
to ask, and we can try to be in a position to conclude when the next
he made the statement we don't.
bell rings.
He also made the statement in reference 9 that is most damaging.
Mr. LINDSAY. All right, sir.
He says it lacks sophisticated armor or fuel protection necessary to
On reference 9, he states that it would be imprudent to install
operate in the European theater environment. Gentlemen, nothing
equipment for carriage of the Maverick missiles. We went to Eglin
could be further from the truth. The Enforcer's armor is a sophisticated
Air Force Base with the airplane, and while we were there, that air-
ceramic composite which I described to you as breaking up the
plane was taken away from us and was jacked up and statically was
projectiles. It also has the advantage it can be formed as the cowling
fitted and statically dropped for everything that they had currently
of the engine. We actually armor the whole lower 180 degrees of the
in the inventory or under consideration. It was cleared for all of them.
engine. We armor the pilot against 23 millimeters. We armor the wheel-
Some are classified, and I don't even know what they were. But
well areas where the hydraulic components are located. In fact, the
among the ones I know we were cleared for is the Maverick missile
wheel-well doors are made of armor.
and the Rockeye, which I think are two of the most effective antitank
And one of my little, simple ideas was rather than buying expensive
weapons available to us at the present time.
oxygen bottles that won't blow up, take standard oxygen bottles and
He states we cannot handle the Maverick, SO I have to correct that.
put them in a box of armor. We have a box of oxygen in armor. We
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Would the cockpit be able to take the display?
are heavily armored. This has been tested by the Navy for up to
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir, it would. In any cockpit it is always a
defeating 57-millimeter heat projectiles. The project officer can fill
question of finding the space. I have gone into them with the sergeant
you in on that if you would like the staff to look into it.
installing them in the aircraft, and there seems to be no problem.
Mr. ROBERT PRICE. What about the sides of the cockpit with re-
gard to the armor, and the canopy?
24
25
I will pass on some of these that are opinion. He is certainly entitled
nam-type wars are never going to happen again because if I were a
to his opinion. I would like to point out, though, going beyond the
Communist leader that is all the kinds of wars I would ever be think-
committee, that this Air Force misinformation also found its way into
ing about because they are the ones we do SO badly in and they do
the trade publications, and therefore I attached Aerospace Daily
better.
where the Air Force rebutted the comments made by Representative
If I were a Communist leader I would be considering these wars of
Aspin. I had not solicited those comments, but they were certainly
national liberation, as they call them, as the only way to go. In a
very pertinent.
jungle-type environment, with small, rough airstrips, I believe that
They compounded their errors, and I have given you-I have
a plane like the Enforcer could perform a very useful and definite
marked in yellow some of the things which are incorrect, and in 4-A
mission.
and 5-A they state that it lacks sophisticated armor and fuel protection
Mr. Lindsay, have we yet had the statistics on the total loaded
necessary to operate in the European environment. This is the public
range-fully loaded range-fully loaded with weapons, that is,
press which is read by everyone in the Embassies where we would hope
range of the Enforcer, as opposed to the fully loaded range of the
to begin sales for offshore aircraft. It is read by all the other manu-
A-10's?
facturers that might want to bid on building the airplane, or its sub-
Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir, I don't believe we have because my data
components, and it is hurtful.
does not gibe exactly with the Naval Systems Command, and I
So what has happened is the Air Force misinformation has now
would like the privilege of supplying that for the record. I would have
found its way into the public press, and even while I'm doing my
to be qualified in this fashion; what kind of weapons do you want to
darndest to avoid fighting the A-10, which I don't want to do, I
consider?
would like to supplement it. In the July 31 issue of Aerospace Daily,
Mr. PIKE. All right. I want to consider-let's take a mix-let's
which I'm sure you gentlemen are familiar with, there is a half page
take the maximum weight that you can carry in iron bombs, and the
and more by Fairchild executive Tom Turner, who as I thought was
maximum weight that they can carry in iron bombs, and give us the
an old friend of mine and an excellent salesman, and he makes some
statistics on the range of each. Then take any other combination of
of these same statements that we don't have armor, we can't carry
weapons that adds up to the maximum weight that you want to, and
Maverick, and of course he does say we can't carry the 30-millimeter
give us the range.
cannon, and we certainly wouldn't try to. That is a monster thing.
Mr. LINDSAY. I would be very happy to do that. I would like to
With that, sir, I'm open to questions.
suggest that I be allowed to present a suggested mix, in that quite a
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Pike.
few Air Force officers with combat experience have told me that they
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, before I ask Mr. Lindsay any questions
in fact, even in Vietnam, did not use these 1,000-pound bombs, as
I have got to, in fairness to the other members, inject a small personal
loads, and that sort of thing. They were essentially going out with the
note here.
more sophisticated weapons with CBU, with ECM-PODS, with
I have been very interested in this aircraft for a long time. I have
rockets, with gun pods, and I would like to give you exactly what you
been down to Vero Beach to see it, and I wholly agree with Mr.
are asking, but also supplement it with what I think might be a more
Lindsay that the Air Force never gave the Enforcer a fair and rea-
practical mix for close air support.
sonable comparison evaluation at the time of the so-called Pave Coin
Mr. PIKE. All right.
competition.
I can't quite understand whether you are still saying that this is a
It was a nonexistent competition, in effect. They never announced
close air support aircraft for the European theater operation or not.
any results. They never established any parameters. They just went
Mr. LINDSAY. I'm glad you asked that question. I started this
around and spent a lot of money for parts and planes. I guess it was
aircraft for Vietnamization, to replace the A-1 Sky Raider which did
contractors' money largely.
a superb job.
Mr. LINDSAY. I'm afraid that is the case.
Mr. PIKE. So you said.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Lindsay and I, however, came to the parting of the
Mr. LINDSAY. Yet, as I got into it, and after Pave Coin fell apart
ways when it was alleged in this subcommittee that we should take
as you know, I continued to study. I went over to Europe and talked
the money out of the R. & D. budget for A-10's and put the money
to the people at SAAB, I talked to the people in France, the head of
into Enforcer.
the NATO Air Force, and I began to realize there is a place for the
Mr. Lindsay wonders why it was determined by some people a
airplane in the European theater as well as the foreign nations.
threat to the A-10. Some people tried very hard to make it a threat
In an aircraft, which if carrying this terrifically heavy armor that
to the A-10, to stop building that one in order to bulid this one.
we can carry, utilizing the latest lightweight standoff weapons and
M. There are things, obviously, which the A-10 can do that the En-
utilizing ECM-PODS, et cetera, which we can carry, can survive in
forcer cannot do, and Mr. Lindsay has obviously conceded that. I do
the European theater using a combination of nap of the Earth, heli-
think, however, that there should be a real evaluation of this aircraft
copter-like tactics coming in very low, which a propeller-driven can
for a different role than that of the A-10. The role, as Mr. Lindsay
do because of its higher efficiency at low altitude. I think we can do
sees it, of operating off small fields, close to the combat lines, and I
a good job, which I hadn't really thought about.
think we make a mistake in defense if we just assume that Viet-
This is a supplement to my original design.
FORD
26
27
Now, I feel that since the A-10 prices are SO high, maybe it could
fit into our inventory in the Hi-Lo mix range.
think it is as good for that one mission as something like the A-10
Mr. PIKE. I would be more impressed with your prices figures on the
or the A-4, which has excellent over-the-nose visibility. But it is an
A-10 if I had not evolved a few figures of my own recently, and that is
awful comforting feeling to the pilot to have all that out in front of
that for every plane we've got in the Air Force we seem to need 14
you. And from a safety standpoint, remember I have no fuel whatever
officers. I wonder what you are considering as the backup costs in-
in the fuselage of this airplane. I don't have a hot engine back of me-
volved in an equal buy in dollars of your planes as opposed to A-10's?
and a lot of fuel in a tank. And if I should get hit low, and have to
What are you computing in there for pilots and maintenance? Are you
belly the airplane in, that engine and that nose that is affecting
computing anything?
visibility is going to break its way through the underbrush, clear a
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir, I am. I have given considerable thought to
path for me and I'm going to step out of the cockpit, instead of having
that. It comes back in two phases. One, it is much simpler to teach a
the engine and fuel following the laws of physics compress on me, and
pilot to fly this essentially simple airplane.
blow up.
Mr. PIKE. That doesn't cost anybody. We are paying the same. We
That is why we don't intend to eject under most conditions. We
would tend to avoid ejection. Because the airplane with that weight
may train him a little less but we are paying the same.
Mr. LINDSAY. We can use our offshore allies. I believe one of the
up ahead and the armament can be belly-landed very successfully.
Congress' positions and the administration position has been as far
Mr. PIKE. Do you have an ejection seat?
Mr. LINDSAY. The present seat installed is the Yankee extraction
as possible in future wars of liberation we will try to supply the hard-
seat. The reason it is that seat is because it is the one the Air Force
ware as the Russians have done and let the locals do the fighting.
The Indonesians, for example, can do a beautiful job flying this
asked us to put in. I previously spent 3 days at Wright-Patterson
airplane-very, very capable of flying it. Even the South Vietnamese,
Base, going through the life support system.
as small as they were, were flying A-1 Sky Raiders as well. This is
Mr. PIKE. I think you better stop talking shorthand to us and
about one-third as hard to fly.
explain these features a little more.
Mr. PIKE. Assume we wanted to sell some or give some to the
Mr. LINDSAY. Well, thank you.
Indonesians. What would they buy instead of, an F-5.?
The Yankee seat is the one most popular in Southeast Asia. It is a
seat where the rocket is fired first and pulls the pilot from the cockpit.
Mr. LINDSAY. An F-5 is an aircraft not designed for close support
and would not really have close air support capability.
Rather than compressing his spine with the usual problems of fractures
Mr. PIKE. One of the difficulties I have again with your plane, and
and compression, it tends to be much easier on you to be extracted
than kicked out with a rocket.
the profiles used, you have given us, shows it best, is the visibility
A classic example of the opposite is this Martin-Baker ejection
problem. You've got a lot of nose sticking out there in front and under
from a Harrier on the cover of the current Aviation Weekly. In that
that cockpit for looking down on ground targets.
case the pilot is undergoing a tremendous number of G's on his back-
It is, as you concede and as we all recognize, a derivation of a
bone. You know the results of that. We can accommodate this other
World War II aircraft which was also an air-to-air aircraft and not a
seat. The name Stencil is the name of the designer of the seat. It is a
close support aircraft. It looks like an air-to-air aircraft. So that again
good seat. The seat that is used in the Harrier is a British-built
is one of the difficulties I have with your airplane.
Martin-Baker, which is probably the most widely used and widely
Mr. LINDSAY. I would like to try to answer that.
known. It has a tremendous save record. But we have checked our
The visibility directly over the nose is not sufficient at present for
cockpit for accommodation of other seats, I have looked at the
the delivery of lay-down weapons. That would be a tradeoff against
Escape-Pack at North American, and the Stencil seat. That is merely
the fact we have excellent visibility to the rear by protecting ourselves
a matter of service choice.
by turning inside a jet that might venture down to our low altitude
Mr. PIKE. That is all I have.
arena and release a Sidewinder equivalent on us.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Dickinson.
The aircraft which puts the pilot up in the very nose has very little
Mr. DICKINSON. Thank you.
visibility to the rear SO it is a tradeoff. As far as the general visibility,
the nose is SO narrow and you sit so high and the nose rides so low in
By way of observation it would seem from what you have said here,
and what I have read also, grossly misused sometimes. I would for
actual flight that the visibility, the minute you get off directly 12
one like to see competition.
o'clock in front of you and get over to 11 o'clock or 1 o'clock, your
In talking with Army pilots and Army people, the guys on the
visibility is excellent.
And at the same time you are almost always jinking around in the
ground as well as helicopter pilots, there is no secret that they are
very unhappy at being forced to rely on the Air Force for ground
sky in some form.
Mr. PIKE. Jinking around? But when you deliver your ordnance
support.
It would seem there are two things wrong with your situation, or
that is when you need the visibility in front of you?
Mr. LINDSAY. For a lay-down weapon, yes; you are quite right.
two things that have come together-at least the two-to put you in
A CBU weapon, a fuel-air explosive weapon, would probably, you
this unhappy plight.
would have to develop a technique of sighting down the side, and
One is you are caught in the clash of roles and missions between the
two services.
probably a count-down system. I think this could be devised. I don't
28
29
The Air Force would be very reluctant to give up their fixed-wing
What was the statement you made about the unfortunate experience
priority. The Army, I think, would be glad to assume it, but I don't
with the Harrier recently?
know how realistic it is to think this is going to come about.
Mr. LINDSAY. I was told all funds for the advanced Harrier were
Probably another problem you have is you don't charge enough for
eliminated by the Congress in the last 48 hours. I don't know whether
your airplane. If it were $2 or $3 million, I think the Air Force would
that is true or not. I was told that by the people in the Marine Corps.
be more likely to buy it than just something that sells for $650,000.
The AV-16 which is distinct from the one they presently have which
That seems to be the history of the thing.
is the A-8 which has rather limited loiter.
I'm very impressed with what I have heard. Mr. Chairman, for the
Mr. DICKINSON. The Marines have bought two wings, I think, or
life of me I cannot reconcile, nor can I understand, the direct variance
squadrons.
of the facts this committee has been given. Either Mr. Lindsay is
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. It could be that the Senate Appropriation Com-
correct and can be proven so, in which case General Evans was telling
mittee may have done something. That would be a matter for
us, based on what I know, many erroneous facts; or Mr. Lindsay is
Congress to determine.
wrong and General Evans is right. I think we should find out what
Mr. DICKINSON. Has something happened to the Harrier? Have
General Evans was basing his evidence on. If he is at fault in giving
they changed?
us erroneous information, I think we ought to look into that. If Mr.
Mr. LINDSAY. The British who were in the development of the ad-
Lindsay is wrong, we will need to know that, too.
vanced engine for the Harrier that was supposed to be practical pulled
[Note. The Air Force submitted the following letter concerning
out totally leaving the Marines on their own. They said they couldn't
General Evans' testimony.]
fund it unilaterally. The present Harrier is essentially a research vehi-
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
cle and this committee has so characterized it and SO has the Senate.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
It doesn't have enough range or fuel. The operation in the vertical
Washington, August 26,1974.
mode uses up SO much fuel it doesn't have much left. They hoped the
Hon. WILLIAM L. DICKERSON,
House of Representatives.
new one would be better, in the eighties, and apparently now the funds
DEAR MR. DICKINSON: This is in response to your request for information
for the later one have been cut, which makes me wonder what they are
regarding Lt General Evans' testimony on the Piper Enforcer.
going to have as a forward deployable airplane in the meantime.
Lt General William J. Evans, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Develop-
Mr. DICKINSON. You said the Marines were directed to test this as
ment appeared with Dr. Walter B. LaBerge, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
opposed to Air Force or Army, since that is their role anyway in giving
(Research and Development) before the House of Representatives, Committee on
Armed Services, Subcommittee No. 1 (Research and Development) on Friday,
close air support. I don't know that I understood the results of it.
April 5, 1974 to discuss various ongoing R&D developments within the USAF.
Mr. LINDSAY. A small technicality, sir. They were directed to evalu-
During these hearings, Chairman Price introduced the subject of the Enforcer,
ate on paper with computer techniques and engineering analysis. It
an extensively modified P-51 aircraft designed several years ago by Mr. David
has never been flown. All- that-except in Pave Coin for a few days. All
Lindsay. Mr. Price inquired as to the possibility of the Enforcer's use as a close
air support aircraft versus the Air Force's A-10.
I'm really asking for is to correct the record, and, two, to solicit your
General Evans' testimony about the Enforcer represented his honest opinion
support in getting flight tests which will give meaningful data. There is
of that aircraft's ability to perform the close air support mission and reflected
just SO far you can go with a computer. The Marines, I am sure, as-
the results of past Air Force analyses, flight tests and evaluations made during
sisted by the Navy, would be happy to take it out to Patuxent River
the last three years.
Because of the potential misunderstandings involving Enforcer capabilities,
after Lockhood certified it to them in the normal military process and
the Air Force Chief of Staff, General David C. Jones, met with Mr. Lindsay on
test it and tell us what the infrared signature is. Some of my patents
August 17, 1974 and discussed the Enforcer. At that meeting, General Jones also
include the introduction of cold air after the burning of the jet fuel,
invited Mr. Lindsay to meet in the near future with Lt General James T. Stewart,
and bring the heat out over the wing SO it is screened from the infantry-
Commander, Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio to
held missiles below.
conduct a more technical discussion of the Enforcer. Mr. Lindsay will be provided
the opportunity to present his appraisal of the potential operational capabilities
But there is no way in God's world to do that with a computer. It
and flight characteristics of his currently proposed Enforcer as well as a copy of his
has got to be flown.
proposed flight test plan. Subsequent to this meeting General Stewart will conduct
Mr. DICKINSON. As General Cushman said when interrogated in the
a comprehensive review of all available Enforcer information.
House Appropriations Committee: "What kind of tests will they con-
With any new data that is made available for this forthcoming review, our
future analysis may, of course, differ from past analysis. Following this review,
duct? Is this another paper study?"
the findings will be reported to the Chief of Staff.
General Cushman said, "No, sir. I think they will have to fly it to
We trust this information responds adequately to your request. We will be
get all the determinations."
pleased to provide the results of General Stewart's review should you desire.
They didn't fly it?
Please call if we can provide anything further in this regard.
Sincerely,
Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir.
RALPH J. MAGLIONE,
Mr. DICKINSON. They have not flown it?
Brigadier General, USAF Director,
Mr. LINDSAY. The airplane has been in storage in Vero Beach for
Legislative Liaison.
something over 2 years.
Mr. DICKINSON. You discussed some of the technical things that I
Mr. DICKINSON. I don't want to take too much time. I am very.
had in mind, such as-heat suppressors or reflectors for your weapons.
impressed with what you have said and what you have been able to
You do have space and power to carry ECM-pods, Chaff dis-
show us.
pensers, and SO forth.
What is it you want?
30
31
Mr. LINDSAY. I would like to have the Lockheed proposal to Naval
free. But, as Lockheed does propose a couple of modifications in my
Air Assistance Command accepted. They were asked to propose a
design, they want to widen the horizontal tail to about 16 feet, SO
package program which would include standard Milspec-contractor
that when it is carrying extremely blunt stores it will be more stable,
engineering verification with 6th-scaled model wind tunnels and all
although it can manage now, and they want to put in a hydraulic
that, then contract or flight tests for loader, for handling characteris-
aileron boost for greater rate of roll.
tics for weapons separation.
Those are the only changes they contemplate. But the airplane
Mr. DICKINSON. This was the $6.5 million.
could be taken out and go through the normal safety inspections and
Mr. LINDSAY. $6.1 million. That includes four flying airplanes com-
flown.
plete with engines and everything else except for avionics.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Is that Lycoming engine that you mentioned
Mr. DICKINSON. What is it you want?.
still in production?
Mr. LINDSAY. I would like to get someone to order the Pentagon to
Mr. LINDSAY. It is not only in production, but that is for the Shah
go ahead and test it. I think with the amount of money I have seen
of Iran's Government the improved version of it which includes ad-
wasted, and the fact that the Pentagon now admits in a letter from
ditional power, some advantages in the burner cans metallurgy, and
Secretary Clements, he says this is a zero-risk project, why not test it?
in the fuel control is currently in production, and the Shah paid the
That is why I am SO frustrated.
startup cost. That is the core engine.
Mr. DICKINSON. If you want to prove the point, you still haven't
The gear box which turns the propeller is not currently in pro-
one of the services that will buy it.
duction, but there are a couple in existence. It is a routine matter to
Mr. BATTISTA. Mr. Lindsay, I believe there are at least four or five
put it in production.
aircraft that were evaluated during the Pave Coin program.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Ichord.
You are asking the committee to provide support in getting your
Mr. ICHORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
aircraft flight-tested. Why yours and not any one of the others? Was
I just want to state, Mr. Chairman, that I am in complete agree-
yours clearly the outstanding aircraft among those evaluated in the
ment with Mr. Dickinson and with Mr. Lindsay, and I think it is
Pave Coin program?
long past the time that we give serious attention to a reevaluation
Mr. LINDSAY. There is no question about it. And I can give you the
and a modification of the roles and mission concept, particularly in
names of the two pilots that flew the aircraft.
the field of close air support.
In the first place, only one of the aircraft actually showed up, and
I have always thought on this-and am sure Mr. Pike will share
that was a Pinto, which is a conversion of a Navy trainer of 15 years
this belief-the way you are flying the A-10, or any other plane, that
ago. It is a very tiny, light aircraft which was not allowed to carry
the people in the air should be coordinating and working rather close
the prescribed ordnance. It is a single engine jet. By the very nature it.
with the people on the ground. I think that the Army should be either
is not adapted to ground support.
flying this plane or the A-10 in all close-air-support missions, or the
Mr. BATTISTA. Do you believe there is a sole source justification
Marine Corps, or what have you.
here for flight-testing your aircraft?
Mr. PIKE. The Marines do it.
Mr. LINDSAY. I certainly do, sir. I came forward at the request of
Mr. ICHORD. Right, they do it that way, because they don't have
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and brought something off the shelf.
that problem.
I spent my own money in it. We clearly won Pave Coin, which was
I think, Mr. Lindsay, you have probably been up against however,
open to all the industry that wanted to participate. Most of them
more than the roles and missions concept.
didn't want to participate because it wasn't funded.
You unfortunately had the "No, No" tag of NIH on your product.
Mr. DICKINSON. Let me close by saying, I would be willing for
"Not Invented Here."
whatever good it would do to sign a joint letter similar to the ones
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.
that the five Senators wrote. It makes sense to me, and I think it is
Mr. ICHORD. I have been on this committee long enough to know
commonsense.
it is pretty difficult to get anything by, if it has that tag on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask you this question: You say you have sold the
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Is the Enforcer prototype flight worthy?
project to Piper, and Piper in turn sold the manufacturing rights to
Mr. LINDSAY. The existing prototype is in a runup storage where
Lockheed.
it comes out once a week, we start the engine-o its own internal
What financial interest, if any, do you retain in the Enforcer?
battery and taxi it around the field to lubricate the landing structure,
Mr. LINDSAY. I am an unpaid consultant to Piper and to Lockheed,
and SO forth, and put it back in the hangar. Any airplane stored that
and to the Navy, in the 106-millimeter gun test. I received not even
long might have to have what is called a licensing inspection in FAA
my expenses, although it cost me approximately $130,000 in the last
terms.
year of carrying out the evaluation, on my part of having to travel
The only other impediment to it is the engine is owned by the Navy
and provide the things that were needed by the Navy Systems
and it is on a not-to-be-flown contract, at zero cost. When I was using
Command, et cetera, which are all on my own plate.
the engine I was having to pay the full cost of the engine prorated over
Mr. ICHORD. Do I understand you to say you have no financial
a 4-year period. That is rather expensive. And unless there is some
interest?
reason to fly it, we were happy to have the Navy let us store it for
32
33
Mr. LINDSAY. I do have a financial interest in it that Piper paid
claim it as a perfected weapon. I would rather say the ones we know
me a relatively modest down payment, and they were to pay me
we can operate against tanks with in a standoff basis are the Maverick
and others.
an additional sum based on the fact, if they sold airplanes. If they
don't sell any airplanes, I don't get a thing. But I will receive, I
Mr. HICKS. You can't do that at $70 a round, though.
think, a relatively modest payment per airplane if it is sold.
Mr. LINDSAY. I feel definitely and strongly it should be pursued,
Mr. ICHORD. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would state that I would agree
the Maverick costs approximately $13,000 a round, and it is a single
with Mr. Dickinson. I think Mr. Lindsay should have a test. Mr.
shot. The 106 millimeter, $70 a round, it is a single shot. I would think
Battista has prepared a number of questions and has given some to
it would be in the country's interest to pursue the testing. I would like
me. I have got to leave now, but I do hope Mr. Battista will get the
to incorporate that testing into the Enforcer testing that I am pro-
answers to all of these questions that he has prepared before Mr.
posing, because clearly the Enforcer is the natural plane to use it,
Lindsay leaves. I think it is very appropriate that they be in the record.
since it can land with the Army, it could pick up 106 millimeter rounds,
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Spence.
it could pick up 50 caliber rounds, and could pick up fuel with any
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions.
Army detachment it might be able to land in.
I want to thank Mr. Lindsay for his presentation. I want to apolo-
Mr. HICKS. When you were giving load amounts, did you include
gize for having to run back and forth answering quorums. I think
in that the 50 caliber rounds? You have to trade off, you can't carry
you made a very good case for your airplane.
as many Mavericks?
I would like to join Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Ichord in calling for
Mr. LINDSAY. The 50 caliber rounds weigh 630 pounds for 2,000 of
a test.
them. I can't visualize a single mission in which you wouldn't carry
Mr. LINDSAY. I deeply appreciate that, gentlemen. I think the
those with you.
test will prove it has high utility and I think probably if looked at
My understanding of the way that D.D.R. & E. has broken out
fairly and impartially will verify what Mr. Ichord said, that really
these figures which have supplemented my original ones is that they
this probably should be a plane based with the Army. The Army has
consider that internal munitions and the figures that they are using
a concept of refuel-rearm, where they intend, knowing there is going
are external ordnance-under-wing ordnance.
to be a confused battle with chaff all over the air and countermeasures
Mr. HICKS. I have no further questions. Thank you very much.
and great confusion, centralized computers will just not work in a
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Lindsay, have you had any recent contact
true air war. It might work in Vietnam where we had complete air
with anyone in the Air Force?
superiority. But their concept is to have the fuel, the ammunition,
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. I called on the former Chief of the Air Force,
trucked or helicoptered in, during the night, and you take off in the
who is now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, on Friday the 19th to
morning in your airplane and you go find the war and you fight it.
present a very similar letter analysis to that given you. In fact, it was:
You support your troops. Then you turn on a coded locator and go
his chief aide's and exec's suggestion it was actually dictated to his
back and find where they have moved that base during the day to
secretary. They stayed there until 8:30 that night and got out the
some other farmer's field or some other road.
whole package. But nothing that they have done about it has come to
We could operate with them. It wouldn't matter whether it was an
my attention. So I called General Brown's office the night before last
Air Force pilot flying it, Marine Corps pilòt, or a man in an Army
and said "I am scheduled to appear before Mr. Price's committee.
suit. But it should work in close collaboration with the Army and it
What do you want me to do? I don't want you to think I am double-
is capable of doing that.
crossing you."
Since they, after all, are the recipient service in close-air support, I
He said, "We passed it to the Air Force. They had their chance-
honestly hope that some consideration will be given to a concept such
move out."
as this.
So that is why I am here.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Hicks.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Have you had any followup since your visit
Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
with General Brown?
I don't understand all this that my learned colleagues understand,
Mr. LINDSAY. No; I have not with the Air Force. I had a 2-hour
since they have been flying airplanes, but I was impressed by what was
session yesterday at DDR&E with a gentleman who is the head of
done here, and I join Mr. Ichord in asking that these questions be
land warfare. He had the A-10 project officer from his office there.
answered.
They were both quite interested and helpful.
You spoke about the 106 millimeter recoilless rifle when you were
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Perhaps you have not received it, but the
giving Mr. Pike your mix of loads. Did you always have this recoilless
chief of staff of the Air Force, General Jones, has addressed a letter
rifle?
to you suggesting that you contact the executive officer, Colonel
Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir; the recoilless rifle is-the firing of it was at
Gray-you might want to do that while you are in town-at 697-925,
my suggestion, and the firing was the first in history, but we have to
to arrange a mutually convenient time when you can sit down and
recognize that it is in its infancy. It is something that has never been
discuss this matter with him.
done before. It requires a great deal of flight-testing. It has had its
Mr. LINDSAY. I am delighted to hear that, sir. I would like nothing
ground testing and theoretical testing and I, therefore, would not
better than to sit down with General Jones, of whom I have heard.
nothing but the best reports.
34
35
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. General Jones will advise you that he welcomes
a visit with you to discuss the general aspects of the proposal.
qualified, clear-deck and catapault for carriers. He added a 23-pound
Mr. LINDSAY. I hope something comes of that in the way of a flight
tail hook to the aircraft and told me it was one of the sweetest airplanes
test, sir. I hate to seem persistent, but I think we have studied and
he had ever taken aboard a ship
analyzed, all we can. We now have to get the airplane in the air, as
I asked him what he thought of the Enforcer, and he said:
General Brown said in that very fine comment about the "real world."
You are going to have a much stronger landing gear in your production
version. You have a great deal more power. You should be able to get off shorter.
But I shall certainly make that contact.
You are much more rugged.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. You probably have this letter at your office in
There should be no reason in the world you couldn't almost consider it qualified
Florida. They directed it to you, it's dated August 5.
the minute you put a landing hook on it.
Mr. LINDSAY. It was not there at 12:30 today when I spoke with
And we have designed the aft section and it accepts the tail hook.
my office. I asked if there was any important mail at all, and I was
If it weren't for the carrier aspect, I think we would add the tail
told "nothing."
hook for recovery of badly shotup aircraft, as they use cables and
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Aspin, would you have any questions?
weights to slow them down when they come in with quite a bit of the
Mr. ASPIN. Maybe just one question, of Mr. Lindsay.
controls shot away.
Is this in your view-to what extent is this a competitor to the
I feel there is no question about its carrier-compatability and that
A-10, in your view? I mean in some sense you know, you talk about
it could fly into the Marine beachheads and land on their unimproved
General Evans misrepresenting the differences, or in what sense is it
surfaces carrying out their primary role.
in your view a complement to the Force?
I must say, when I first talked to General Cushman, I told him we
Mr. LINDSAY. I think they are more complementary than competi-
were not trying to sell the plane to the Marines, we were trying to
tive. The A-10 is not clear to land on unimproved fields. We are, We
get a test because of the vast overseas market we had determined.
are a small plane flying at helicopter speeds. We are inexpensive
But the more I study it the more I feel it is appropriate for the
planes, when the loss is taken, losses will not break the Treasury.
Marines, and at that time I did not know of Captain Elders' testing.
Losses will be taken. We will have to admit the environment will be
Mr. BATTISTA. Extending Mr. Aspin's remarks: You are not really
quite lethal.
advocating the Enforcer as a competitor to the A-10, rather as a sup-
The A-10 I am sure has uses I don't understand. I don't think it can
plement to the A-10, or other close-air support applications in the
do the things we can do, and I am sure it can do some things that we
European problem?
can't.
Mr. LINDSAY. Correct. I think there would be many places where
Mr. ASPIN. What you would be really opting for is a mix, a high-low
we would be reluctant to take in aircraft of that expense and com-
mix, some kind of a force consideration in which we would buy maybe
plexity where the support equivalent might not be available where
not as many A-10's as we might have-and some Enforcers?
you might need something much simpler, much more field repairable.
Mr. LINDSAY. I think that is a very valid proposition. Apparently
I think it would supplement the A-10 in that regard.
it is achieving acceptance in the Lightweight Fighter versus the very
In the offshore market military assistance sales, military assistance
expensive F-15. To me it is a correct analysis.
aid, the A-10 price tag almost rules it out of that except for such
Mr. ASPIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
lucky countries as Iran.
Mr. MELVIN PRICE. Mr. Lindsay, we have another recorded vote.
I believe there would be a great potentiality for this airplane
I don't think any of the members will want to return:
offshore, which will also help our relationship of balance of income-
However, I am going to ask Mr. Battista to remain and get for
and-outgo of foreign exchange.
the record some answers to questions that the committee would like
Mr. BATTISTA. With regard to the use of this plane in the close-air
to put to you.
support role, you have got a prop out there which will enhance your
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Price, I would be delighted to stay and, I deeply
radar cross-sectional area. They have done some recent studies on
appreciate this interest shown by the committee and particularly
the effectivenss of the QUAD-23 Gun to effectively engage targets
yourself.
that are flying the nap of the earth.
Thank you, sir.
Do you feel this would be a major drawback in the close-air support?
Mr. BATTISTA. I would like to explore one other application and
Mr. LINDSAY. I talked to some Air Force Officers who have gone into
that is for the Marine Corps in terms of their close-air support mission
that very much, and they feel in an area where you are likely to en-
and amphibious operations.
counter the QUAD-23 there is going to be SO much chaff and other
The Enforcer is not shipboard capable today. Do you see that as a
activity in the air that that slight difference in radar profile would
major problem?
not be important, particularly since we would be working nap of the
Mr. LINDSAY. It would be a very minor problem. I learned through
earth principally.
the President of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, Mr. Robert
If we were coming in on a bomber run, in a formation of bombers at
Elder, former Navy captain and presently with Northrop, prior to the
30,000 feet, it would be, I think, quite a different thing. But I don't
invasion of Japan he conducted a complete carrier qualification of
think in the kind of tactics which I suggested for this airplane it is.
the ancestor of the Enforcer, the P-51 Mustang, and it was fully
important.
36
37
Mr. BATTISTA. I would like to turn to costs.
Answer No. 1. As only the Enforcer flew the full flight test program of Pave
Is the $761,000 estimate the flyaway cost, what essentially does that
Coin, both by day and by night, with zero maintenance while in Air Force custody,
and with excellent accuracy with the varied missions specified, it would seem
represent? Is that airframe plus engine, or does that include some
clear that the Enforcer would have to be considered the superior aircraft.
level of avionics?
Both pilots who flew the test program have confirmed to Enforcer project
What basically is that 761K covering?
personnel and to DOD officials their strong preference of the Enforcer for the
Mr. LINDSAY. That is the complete airplane, plus the R. & D. back
close air support role.
Question No. 2. On page 7 of your prepared statement, you make reference to
of it. The whole package with the exception of the avionics. The
what you term is an obsolete agreement of 1957 which bars the Army from using
NAVAIR estimate of $1.1 million included items that Lockheed showed
fixed wing attack prop jets.
as GFE.
(A) Why do you believe the agreement to be obsolete?
Now, it would include avionics sufficient to fly the aircraft on
Answer No. 2(A). An agreement made in 1957 could not take into account
the changes in tactics made necessary by the current world-wide military situa-
instruments to a target in an area, but quite frankly, the avionics
tion, including the development of highly lethal, radar-directed antiaircraft
picture changes almost daily as you know, and we have been waiting
weapons and heat-seeking missiles. Also, the existing and potential fuel shortage
more or less 3 years now. We felt it was foolish to seek to include the
makes a restudy of fuel requirements necessary. Also, the high level of inflation
avionics. That would probably be determined by the type of mission.
makes obsolete any previous budgetary considerations which might have antici-
pated the use of larger quantities of what have become extremely expensive
It was suggested to me yesterday by the head of land warfare in
aircraft.
D.D.R. & E. that this aircraft might be an excellent forward air control
(B) What potential use could the Army make of the Enforcer?
aircraft in a highly lethal area.
Answer No. 2(B). The Army, if uninhibited in its answers by inter-Service
I am sure in that condition the avionics package would be quite
agreements, could of course best speak to how it could best make use of the
Enforcer. I myself feel that it would be an excellent supplement to fill the gap
different from the avionics package that might be used say in just the
between the armed helicopter and the Air Force's pure jet attack aircraft. The
close support, or it could be used for radio relay, since it is SO eco-
Enforcer's heavy armor and ability to utilize a wide variety of potent ordnance
nomical as to fuel it could be used as we had it rigged during the Pave
would permit it to operate in many areas of lethality which would be beyond the
Coin Test to operate a radio relay flying around at 30,000 feet and
reasonable limits of armed helicopters.
The new Brookings Institution study, "U.S. Force Structure in NATO-An
relaying up a ground VHP message and kicking it back out on UHF
Alternative," stresses that the Warsaw Pact countries have a 3 to 1 edge in tanks
or HF.
and a 2 to 1 edge in aircraft over NATO, and that if a quick tank thrust were made,
These are some of the many uses that would apply. In each case the
NATO forces would require immediately a large number of aircraft for close air
avionics can be accommodated but they would be different in almost
support of ground forces. They could not afford to wait for close support until
air superiority has been achieved.
every case.
As the Enforcer is ideally suited to the mission of being deployed on widespread
Mr. BATTISTA. The $761,000 estimate again, in what year-dollars
fields, in close contact with the Army, (whether flown by Air Force, Army, or
is that?
Marine, or Allied pilots) it could be available for immediate assistance in breaking
Mr. LINDSAY. That estimate, that price was made approximately
up tank concentrations, and also, it would be able to defend itself with its internal
machine guns or Sidewinder-type missiles against attack from hostile aircraft,
6 months ago, and therefore I would have to say it is 1973-end of
through use of its extremely tight turning radius and evasive potential.
1973, early 1974 dollars. We have been assuming an inflation factor of
(C) How would the Enforcer enhance the Army's operatonal capability?
approximately 7 percent, which I believe is the accepted military
Answer No. 2(C). In my opinion, the Enforcer's augmentation of Army direct
figure at the moment.
fire support through the use of Maverick missiles, Rockeye, and a wide variety of
Mr. BATTISTA. It varies.
ordnance beyond the capabilities of attack helicopters, could be crucial.
Question No. 3. The Air Force described many deficiences in the Enforcer as a
Mr. LINDSAY. That is one I would hate to put any money on.
result of the PAVE COIN program. Can you state whether the following problems
Mr. BATTISTA. Depending on how hard you want to sell your pro-
still exist or have been corrected.
gram, it varies.
(A) The cockpit design would only accommodate large pilots.
Mr. LINDSAY. True.
Answer No. 3(A). The cockpit seat and other equipment are capable of being
mounted in varying positions to accommodate the size percentile pilots who
Mr. BATTISTA. Now, I do have an extensive list of questions here.
would be anticipated. It should be pointed out that the Cavalier Mustang,
Rather than taking up the remainder of the afternoon, I will give
furnished by the Air Force to Bolivia and to Indonesia, has a similarly pro-
you these questions and you can provide the answers for the record.
portioned cockpit, and is being flown successfully by pilots of these countries, who
I think that would save a little time.
tend to be smaller in size than pilots of many other countries.
(B) The roll response was inadequate.
Mr. LINDSAY. Whatever your preference is.
Answer No. 3(B). Roll response has been increased to meet full military speci-
Mr. BATTISTA. I will do that.
fications of this type aircraft by the addition of a hydraulic aileron boost. The
The subcommittee will adjourn subject to the call of the Chair.
aircraft can be flown quite adequately in the event of loss of this supplemental
hydraulic system.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to
(C) It had unacceptable maneuvering performance requiring abnormal pilot
the call of the Chair.]
inputs (i.e., stick force reversal at moderate "G" during pull outs).
[Following are the answers for the record to the specified questions
Answer No. 3(C). Maneuvering performance when carrying large ordnance
submitted to Mr. Lindsay:]
loads has been improved to meet requirements by increasing the span of the
horizontal stabilizer from 13 ft. 2 in. to 16 ft. 9 in. This modification will move the
Question No. 1. The Air Force tested the Enforcer along with the Aeronca-Super
stick fixed neutral point aft to 34.2% MAC from 25.6% MAC without external
Pinto, the Cessna A-37B and two versions of the OV-10 in the Pave Coin pro-
stores. The allowable Center of Gravity travel has been substantially increased.
gram. To your knowledge, did the Air Force consider the Enforcer to be the
(D) Poor visibility over the nose needed for the delivery of high drag, close air
superior aircraft of the five tested?
support munitions.
38
39
Answer No. 3(D). Visibility directly over the nose is inherently limited by the
Question No. 8. The Army gives the 106 mm. recoilless rifle a maximum effective
forward engine mount design, but it is only necessary to look slightly to the right
range of 3,600 ft., whereas the 30 mm. close air support cannon is effective at
or left of the engine cowl to have excellent visibility downward. The ability to
ranges of 6,000 ft. Does this mean the Enforcer will need to fly in closer to the
deliver "lay-down" high-drag, close support munitions was successfully demon-
armored threat to use the 106?
strated in Pave Coin, when cluster bomb units and napalm canisters all scored hits
Answer No. 8. Dr. C. Walton Musser, points out that the Army's comments on
within the assigned target area during actual day and night tests.
effective range of 3,600 ft. is not a limitation of the weapon itself, which has a
(E) Unsatisfactory cockpit cooling.
maximum range of 25,200 ft. when fired from a ground mount, (this would be
Answer No. 3(E). Cooling in the cockpit has been improved to desired limits by
greater when fired from an aircraft in a dive). The Army's mention of 3,600 ft. as
modification to the Hamilton Standard 3-spool turbine airconditioner, by the
effective range was based on (1) The fact that the weapon was designed to be
addition of bleed air, and by enlarging the fan capacity to move air.
fired by the infantry using a caliber 50 spotting rifle, which has substantially less
Question No. 4. The maximum ordnance load for the Enforcer is listed at 5,480
range than the 106 mm. and (2) Records of thousands of encounters of this weapon
pounds. Does this include the 50 caliber ammunition?
on ground mounts with armor have indicated that there are usually limitations of
Answer No. 4. It does.
the ability to see the tank or the target, due to intervening trees or terrain. This
Question No. 5. How can an Enforcer with six rounds of 106 mm. compare in
would not be applicable to the same extent when firing from an aircraft.
effectiveness to the A-10 which carries 1,350 armor killing rounds of 30 mm. in
The 106 mm. has demonstrated hits from 6,000 ft. slant range when fired from
addition to 16,000 pounds of external ordnance?
a Cavalier Mustang aircraft. Dr. Musser and I have recommended that flight
Answer No. 5. Probably the only way to accurately answer this question is to
tests will probably indicate optimized harmonizing distances of the gun and the
carry out flight tests against actual armored targets. The 106 mm. recoilless rifle
sight of the weapon at 2,000 meters slant range.
is the standard anti-tank weapon of much of NATO, and there is no question that
When Army uses the telescope sight M92D, maximum direct fire range is
it can destroy any tank known.
specified as 6,600 ft. (2012 meters). *Reference Army Field Manual FM23-82,
It has been successfully demonstrated mounted on the wing-tips of an aircraft
May 1964.
corresponding in design geometry to the Enforcer, although these tests are still
Question No. 9.
in relatively early stages.
(A) Do you envision any changes to increase survivability (aircraft hardness) of
At this date, the GAU-8/A 30 mm. gun has not been cleared by the Defense
the Enforcer, particularly against the 23 mm. threat? If so, what?
Systems Acquisition Review Council, as to full compatability with the A-10, and
Answer No. 9 (A). The composite ceramic/fiber armor weight allowance of the
as to ability to penetrate Russian tank frontal armor under simulated operational
Enforcer has been increased from 1,100 lb. to 1,500 lb. to permit armoring of the
conditions.
pilot and certain critical areas against the 23 mm. threat.
As to the 16,000 lb. of external ordnance, there is no claim that the Enforcer
(B) What development efforts are necessary and what are the associated R & D
can carry this amount on plane-for-plane basis, although it can do SO on a dollar-
and production costs?
for-dollar basis.
Answer No. 9(B). Tests of this armor against the 23 mm. threat have already
Question No. 6.
been carried out by the manufacturer and by official government testing agencies,
(A) Do you envision using the Maverick missile?
and therefore R & D expenses are expected to be minimized. As the armor will be
Answer No. 6(A). Yes.
added at the center of gravity of the aircraft, there are no significant design change
(B) If so, can the cockpit accommodate the TV display?
to the aircraft. Production costs will be essentially limited to the cost of the
Answer No. 6(B). Yes.
additional square feet of armor purchased, and this price, of course, will be de-
(C) How many missiles could the aircraft carry?
pendent upon production quantities. As related to the overall cost of the aircraft,
Answer No. 6(C). Six.
the small additional cost of the armor is relatively insignificant.
(D) Is this a part of the development program?
ai
Question No. 10.
Answer No. 6(D). Yes.
(A) Do you envision the aircraft carrying an ECM pod, flare and chaff dispen-
(E) How much delta cost is involved?
sers and radar warning equipment?
Answer No. 6(E). Delta cost will depend upon DOD requirements. Preliminary
Answer No. 10(A). Yes. All of the listed equipment will be carried as the varying
investigations disclose no areas of serious problem or high cost or risk.
combat situations may require.
Question No. 7.
(B) If so, what development/integration effort is necessary?
(A) Concerning the use of six 106 mm. recoilless rifles (3 on each wingtip) on
Answer No. 10(B). Development and integration effort will, of course, depend
the Enforcer, how much would such a system weigh?
on specific equipment selected by the users. The simple design of the Enforcer,
Answer No. 7(A). Use of clusters of three 106 mm. recoilless rifles on each
with a relatively large amount of empty fuselage space made possible by the fact
wingtip is not presently under test. However, it appears to be a feasible operation.
that no fuel is carried in the fuselage should make integration relatively simple.
Dr. C. Walton Musser, inventor of the presently-used ground recoilless rifles
(C) What R & D and production costs are involved?
estimates that weapons designed especially for aircraft, rather than for the
Answer No. 10(C). These items will be dependent upon specific equipment
rugged ground environment would weigh approximately 20% less than the
selected by the user. The Enforcer's design makes it easily adaptable to the use of
standard units. This would put each cluster in a weight category of approximately
any pods in its weight category.
600 lb. (1,200 lb. for the two clusters).
Question No. 11. You refer to the T55-L-9 engine as a variant of the engine
(B) What impact or weight penalty would this have on overall ordnance
tested in the CH-47 Chinook helicopter.
carrying capacity?
(A) How different is this variant?
Answer No. 7(B). The installation contemplated can be used attached outboard
Answer No. 11(A). The basic jet turbine engine is essentially identical, but a
of the Enforcer wingtip tanks, or, with identical fittings, can be attached directly
propeller gear box is added to the basic engine for fixed-wing aircraft use.
to the wingtips after the tanks are removed. If the tanks were removed, there
(B) Is this engine still in production?
would be no reduction of overall ordnance carrying capability, as the filled tanks
Answer No. 11(B). The basic engine is presently in production, under a contract
weigh approximately 900 lb. each. If the clusters were mounted outboard of the
with Iran for in excess of 300 units. The engine is also still in the inventory and in
tanks, carriage of other ordnance on the 10 wing stations would have to be reduced
use in the CH-47 helicopters.
by the weight of the clusters, i.e., 1,200 lb.
(C) If not, what would be the "start up" costs of producing that engine?
(C) How will this affect roll maneuvering performance?
Answer No. 11(C). Re-start-up costs were paid by Iran.
Answer No. 7(C). If mounted directly to the wingtips, there would be no reduc-
(D) Does any engine development effort remain?
tion of roll maneuvering performance. If mounted outboard of the wingtip tanks,
Answer No. 11(D). The propeller reduction gear box is presently operating under
there would be some degree of reduction of roll maneuvering performance, which
a 50-hour Military Preliminary Flight Rating Test. It is contemplated that other
would be one of the items to be determined by flight tests.
engines in the 4-plane flight test program being sought would operate under the
same authority. For production engines, a Military Qualification Test would prob-
ably be required.
40
(E) If so, at what cost?
Answer No. 11(E). For the flight test engines, there would be no more develop-
ment costs, but for production aircraft, built from new tooling in quantity, the
Military Qualification Test is estimated to cost approximately $3 million.
(F) Would this be a pacing item from a schedule point of view?
Answer No. 11(F). The engine would be the pacing item for the 4-plane flight
test program proposed. The production tooling of the aircraft would be the pacing
item for production in quantity.
Question No. 12.
(A) What type of full-scale engineering development program is necessary to
fully qualify the Enforcer for combat operations?
(B) What engineering design effort has been conducted to identify the produc-
tion configuration of the Enforcer?
(C) What type of engineering changes are necessary to transition from the
prototype to production model?
(D) What static and fatigue testing have been accomplished and what is planned
for the development program?
(E) Has the development/test program been laid out for the Enforcer?
(F) How long will the Enforcer development take and how much will it cost?
(G) How much wind tunnel testing is necessary?
(H) How many flight test and fatigue and static articles are required for the
development effort?
Answer No. 12.-All of the information requested in Questions (A) through (H)
was originally put forth in Lockheed-Georgia Proposals (Five volumes-Coded
LG73ETP237) furnished to Naval Air Systems Command in response to their
request for proposal. This information is available in the Pentagon through the
office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. The Project Officer
for the Enforcer in this office who can assist in obtaining the desired data is Capt.
M. W. Townsend, Telephone 695-3015.
As the original proposals were adjusted and modified in several months of dis-
cussion among Lockheed, NASC, Marines, JCTG/Air Survivability, etc., and
the final results have not been made available in their entirety to me or to Lock-
heed, I believe using DDR&E as the source would be more accurate and
convenient.
Question No. 13.-How does the Enforcer with a full ordnance mix compare
with the A-10 in terms of (1) Take-off distance; (2) Speed; (3) Rate of climb;
(4) Range; and (5) Loiter time?
Answer No. 13.-The A-10 data necessary to answer this series of questions is.
not available to Enforcer project personnel, but can be provided by the Penta-
gon's Office of Defense Research and Engineering. As explained in Question 12,
DOD verified Enforcer data is collated at DDR&E.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1975
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida
WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio
DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania
GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York
LOUIS C. WYMAN, New Hampshire
JOHN J. McFALL, California
JACK EDWARDS, Alabama
JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., Georgia
ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi
SAMUEL RALPH PRESTON, JOHN M. GARRITY, PETER J. MURPHY, Jr.,
DEREK J. VANDER SCHAAF, and GORDON CASEY, Staff Assistants
PART 8
Testimony of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover
Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Individuals
and Organizations
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-503 0
WASHINGTON : 1974
FORD
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan
JOHN J. ROONEY, New York
WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida
ROBERT H. MICHEL, Illinois
OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana
SILVIO 0. CONTE, Massachusetts
JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee
GLENN R. DAVIS. Wisconsin
EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts
HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky
GARNER E. SHRIVER, Kansas
DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
TOM STEED, Oklahoma
MARK ANDREWS, North Dakota
GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois
LOUIS C. WYMAN, New Hampshire
JOHN M. SLACK, West Virginia
BURT L. TALCOTT, California
JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., Georgia
WENDELL WYATT, Oregon
NEAL SMITH, Iowa
JACK EDWARDS, Alabama
ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut
WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa
JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, Washington
ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York
JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
JOHN J. McFALL, California
J. KENNETH ROBINSON, Virginia
EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey
CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland
EARL B. RUTH, North Carolina
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
VICTOR V. VEYSEY, California
BOB CASEY, Texas
LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania
FRANK E. EVANS, Colorado
C. W. BILL YOUNG. Florida
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
EDWARD R. ROYBAL, California
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana
GUNN McKAY, Utah
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
EDITH GREEN, Oregon
ROBERT O. TIERNAN, Rhode Island
BILL CHAPPELL, JR., Florida
BILL D. BURLISON, Missouri
KEITH F. MAINLAND, Clerk and Staff Director
STAFF ASSISTANTS
GORDON E. CASEY
AMERICO S. MICONI
KAREN J. SCHUBECK
NICHOLAS G. CAVAROCCHI
DEMPSEY B. MIZELLE
EARL C. SILSBY
GEORGE E. EVANS
ENID MORRISON
G. HOMER SKARIN
ROBERT B. FOSTER
PETER J. MURCHY, Jr.
C. WILLIAM SMITH
JOHN M. GARRITY
HENRY A. NEIL, Jr.
CHARLES W. SNODGRASS
AUBREY A. GUNNELS
ROBERT C. NICHOLAS III
HUNTER L. SPILLAN
CHARLES G. HARDIN
BYRON S. NIELSON
PAUL E. THOMSON
F. MICHAEL HUGO
JOHN G. OSTHAUS
GEORGE A. URIAN
THOMAS J. KINGFIELD
FREDERICK F. PFLUGER
DEREK J. VANDER SCHAAF
ROBERT L. KNISELY
JOHN G. PLASHAL
EUGENE B. WILHELM
EDWARD E. LOMBARD
EDWIN F. POWERS
J. DAVID WILLSON
RICHARD N. MALOW
SAMUEL R. PRESTON
MILTON B. MEREDITH
DONALD E. RICHBOURG
SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS
C. R. ANDERSON, Chief
DAVID B. SCHMIDT, Director
DENNIS F. CREEDON, First Assistant
MARION S. RAMEY, Second Assistant
NOTE-This Surveys and Investigations supervisory staff is supplemented by selected
personnel borrowed on a reimbursable basis for varying lengths of time from various
agencies to staff up specific studies and investigations. The current average annual full-
time personnel equivalent is approximately 42.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
GERARD J. CHOUINARD
MARCIA L. MATTS
AUSTIN G. SMITH
PAUL V. FARMER
FRANCES MAY
CHRISTINE STOCKMAN
SANDRA A. GILBERT
GENEVIEVE A. MEALY
ANN M. STULL
EVA K. HARRIS
JANE A. MEREDITH
RANDOLPH THOMAS
PATRICIA A. KEMP
LAWRENCE C. MILLER
GEMMA M. WEIBLINGER
VIRGINIA MAY KEYSER
DALE M. SHULAW
(II)
345
Secretary SCHLESINGER. Mr. Chairman, we adjust the TOA to conform with
whatever outlay limit the OMB or the President permits. If there had not been
this perception of an easing economic environment I believe our outlays might
have been a billion or a billion and a half dollars less in 1975. That, I think, is the
extent of it. The growth in the TOA request of course reflects what I have in-
dicated, the fact that we were prepared to go in for a request on the order of
$85 billion in outlays.
Ms. ABZUG. Secretary Schlesinger is in fact admitting an increase
of $6.3 billion. The fiscal year 1975 request for TOA (total obligational
authority) is $91.3 billion. This corresponds to the approprations
(budget authority) request of $91 billion.
THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1974.
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
WITNESS
DAVID B. LINDSAY, JR.
Mr. SIKES. The next witness will be Mr. David Lindsay who speaks
for the Enforcer aircraft.
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I or anyone
else representing me has ever discussed the Enforcer in a public forum.
I think it is somewhat unique and I have tried to hold my remarks to a
rather short statement, nine pages, double-spaced.
Mr. SIKES. You may proceed.
Mr. LINDSAY. There will be other witnesses on my behalf.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID B. LINDSAY, JR.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate this oppor-
tunity today to give you certain facts about a privately designed and
produced weapons system, and its advantages and potential for Close
Air Support, which I feel relates critically to the Nation's defense.
I should make it clear I am expressing opinions of my own, not those
of any of the defense-oriented companies which have invested their
funds, in addition to my own not inconsiderable outlay, in develop-
ment of the Enforcer and its related systems. This story is unique; the
Enforcer represents-for the first time in the history of the Defense
Department-a complete aircraft weapons system designed, built, and
tested without any Government funding whatsoever.
The Enforcer is a one-man high, one-man wide, single engine, con-
ventional gear, low-wing aircraft, made entirely of standard aircraft
aluminum and the world's most effective composite armor. It has 10
underwing weapons stations and six internal 50-caliber machine guns
and is essentially a platform to deliver ordnance. Senator Thomas
McIntyre has called it "a flying arsenal." Its unrefueled range or
loiter is greater than that of any comparable aircraft. Its speed range
is 80 to more than 400 knots (which makes it, incidentally, capable of
both faster and slower speeds than the Air Force's proposed close
support aircraft, the A-10).
Some of you may wonder why an artillery officer of World War
II, a newspaper publisher for the past quarter century, is here dis-
cussing a close-support aircraft weapons system.
346
To explain as briefly as possible, I have been a pilot since 1941. In
1957 I purchased the first of a number of F-51D Mustangs which had
remained in service from World War II until that year. The Mus-
tang-our best air superiority fighter of the Second World War-has
impressed all who flew it with its remarkable range and overall per-
formance, and how forgiving it is to pilots with limited experience.
Two years later my company, Cavalier Aircraft, began rebuilding
and improving Mustangs-for the civilian market. I bought addi-
tional aircraft and parts as they became available in the United States,
Canada, Australia, Italy, and in other countries. Cavalier eventually
became so well known through its development of new ideas and modi-
fications to Mustangs that the original designer, North American
Aviation, which had built 15,000 of the aircraft, purchased one from
Cavalier for test pilot Bob Hoover's famous aerial demonstrations.
Mr. SIKES. How many Mustangs did your company rebuild and
resell in the civilian market?
Mr. LINDSAY. The total we produced in the civilian market would
be somewhere in the range of 30 to 35 and some of them were com-
pletely built from the ground up; some were modifications.
Mr. SIKES. What use has been made of most of those aircraft?
Mr. LINDSAY. I designed a second seat for the Mustang and equipped
it with normal executive aircraft-type avionics and seats and other
comforts and it was really bought bv people who had a taste for jet
speeds and a beer pocketbook. I would say most of them were people
who had some spirit of adventure and liked to go a long way in a
hurry at a speed they could afford.
LIMITATIONS OF JET AIRCRAFT
Though this is the jet age, the Air Force. and we at Cavalier, soon
learned that many countries were unable to achieve effective military
operations using only jet aircraft.
Pure jets had, and still have, certain disadvantages which make them
inherently less than ideally suited for close-air-support work. Not the
least of these is a high rate of fuel consumption at low altitude and at
reduced speeds necessary for precise delivery of ordnance very close
to our own troops. Another is an excessively large turn radius. Another
is slow acceleration. Also, with their characteristically small nose
wheel, they are unable to operate from unpaved, rocky, or muddy
fields, They have difficulty conducting sustained maneuvers or searches
at low altitude in difficult, mountainous terrain, or under low ceilings.
Many friendly foreign countries, particularly in South America and
Asia, have a very limited number of paved, jet-capable fields, and
vast areas to be kept under surveillance; their only feasible opera-
tional technique is for their aircraft to land, refuel, and rearm on a
pasture, road, or clearing.
Recognizing this, the Air Force requested Cavalier to build a num-
ber of advanced F-51's. known as Cavalier Mustangs, for the military
assistance program. A classic example is Indonesia, a nation of some
3,000 islands, spanning 3,000 miles of the Pacific, which todav is still
operating Cavalier Mustangs recently supplied by the U.S. Air
Force-although it possesses Russian, American, and Australian pure
jets, which are unable to perform many of the Mustangs' missions.
347
Mr. SIKES. When were these Mustangs made available to Indonesia ?
Mr. LINDSAY. They were made available to Indonesia in a time
span ending approximately a year ago and extending 2 years prior to
that.
Mr. SIKES. How many were there ?
Mr. LINDSAY. Six aircraft were shipped over and then my company
sent a contingent of people to Indonesia at their request to rebuild
their aircraft in-country. It was a very high-priority program at the
time and the aircraft were actually air shipped in large turboprop
transport aircraft.
GENESIS OF ENFORCER
Cavalier never achieved profitability under these military contracts
but the experience proved invaluable. U.S. and foreign pilots sent to
Cavalier were recently experienced in combat. Their advice and
realistic concept of the requirements for an ideal close air support
machine convinced me I could build a superior state-of-the-art weapons
system for close air support, utilizing a number of my own patents for
simplified aircraft construction and weapons systems.
In speaking of close air support I am not discussing interdiction,
deep strike, or long-range bombing missions. I am speaking of close air
support as defined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dictionary as follows:
"Air attacks against hostile targets which are in close proximity to
friendly forces and which require detailed integration of each air
mission with the fire and movement of those forces."
In the early seventies Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard,
in a widely applauded move, challenged private companies to initiate
prototype efforts at their own expense; this encouraged me in my
efforts to provide an alternative. I had the feeling that the aircraft
I was talking about was about as practical as a jeep and perhaps to
make an analogy we could build jeeps out of titanium; they wouldn't
be any better and might be worse because it is hard to field-weld a piece
of titanium. They would, of course, cost more.
Most combat officers whose ideas I sought agreed the jet-prop, or
turboprop as it's also called, is the ideal propulsion system for close
air support.
FIRST PROTOTYPE
I built my first prototype around a Rolls-Royce Dart commercial
turboprop engine, and though we were able to prove the soundness of
the concept with experimental flying, actual weapons delivery, et
cetera, the engine was both too large and too lightly stressed for combat
maneuvers.
That necessitated a careful search for a perfectly suited engine. I
finally decided on the Lycoming T-55-L-9, a variant of the basic
engine used today in all Army and Marine CH-47 Chinook helicopters.
The difference between the helicopter engine and ours is merely that
the helicopter engine drives a gear train for the rotor-propeller above
while ours turns a gear box for a forward propeller.
After a nationwide investigation, I located a T-55-L-9 lying unused
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. It was not airworthy, and was
stored in an abandoned wind tunnel. After 8 months of legal effort, I
managed to negotiate a lease with the U.S. Air Force on this engine,
prorated on its full new acquisition cost to the Government. Lycoming,
FORD
348
the engine's manufacturer, demonstrated its faith in the Enforcer
program by overhauling it to airworthy condition at its own expense,
and by assigning technical representatives to work with me without
charge.
Around this engine I designed a new aircraft and built a flying
prototype, retaining, of course, proven features of the F-51, utilizing
components from other aircraft, new avionics systems, and a major
portion of newly manufactured parts based on my own design patents.
The first prototype, for reasons of economy, was therefore a composite.
Production aircraft, would, of course, be of completely new
manufacture.
PIPER AND PAVE COIN
Realizing my role as designer, inventor, test pilot, and prototype
builder didn't extend into the high-cost and labor-intensive field of
large-scale manufacturing, in 1970 I sold the new Enforcer project to
Piper Aircraft Co. for a modest downpayment, and additional funds
to come from aircraft produced and sold in the future.
While still in the process of moving parts from Cavalier to Piper, we
received a request from the Air Force to participate in a completely
unfunded project called Pave Coin. The purpose was to select a close
air support aircraft for the Vietnamization program and to replace the
A-1 Skyraider, whose numbers were rapidly being reduced by
attrition.
In reliance on the clearly stated intent of the Air Force to select
and procure aircraft in at least the minimum quantities set forth in
the "Request for Proposal," we immediately accelerated to a 7-day
overtime schedule, using all in-house and consulting engineering talent
available. Piper spent well over $1 million to prepare hundreds of
drawings, hundreds of pages of specifications and to flight-qualify
the Enforcer for the various weapons and munitions specified for
Pave Coin.
In August 1971, the Enforcer was flown at Piper's expense to Eglin
Air Force Base. For all the time it was in Air Force custody, it per-
formed all flight and weapons tests, by day and at night, with out-
standing operational results and a remarkable record of zero mainte-
nance.
As no other competing aircraft actually flew the test missions suc-
cessfully, we fully expected an order for the minimum requested quote
of 400 aircraft, at Piper's offered flyaway price of $0.61 million each.
No selection or purchase of anyone's aircraft ever resulted from this
operation, however. All of the companies participating simply lost
their investment.
FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS
Despite the disappointments of Pave Coin, we remained convinced
the critical need for a specialized close support, forward deployable
aircraft, remained acute. We, therefore, continued to improve the En-
forcer's performance, weapons capability, armor. and survivably-
to cope with the increasing lethality of the close air support environ-
ment, brought about by striking advances in Russian radar-directed
automatic weapons and heat-seeking missiles.
The most recently added innovation is being successfully tested by
the Marine Corps at China Lake this week. It utilizes my concept and
349
patents for mounting the 106 mm recoilless cannon, standard weapon
of the Army and Marine Corps infantry against tanks, on the En-
forcer's wing tips.
With the backing of the Naval Office of Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, and support and supplies from the Army, firing
of the 106 mm was completed earlier this year-history's first suc-
cessful firing of a recoilless cannon from an aircraft. The cost of a
106 round, incidentally, is only about $70-and there's no question
about its ability to kill any tank.
106 MM RECOILLESS CANNON
Mr. SIKES. I am interested in your discussion of the firing of the 106
mm recoilless cannon. How is this weapon mounted on the wing tips?
Mr. LINDSAY. It is mounted directly to the spars of the wing. This
is a rigid-wing aircraft and the Army had two planes I designed for
them which they made available for the test. My patent encompasses
a rigid-wing which won't flex in turbulence and in extending it you
can point the gun at the tip of the spars or mount a wingtip tank spar
through the tank and mount the gun outboard.
Mr. SIKES. Why on the wing tips rather than close in on either side
of the fuselage?
Mr. LINDSAY. There is a blast pattern, sir, that comes from the re-
coilless cannon. That is the way that it is recoilless. It is the effect of
inertia, and the plutonium principle and the blast factor has been de-
structive to other aircraft on which it was tried. I concluded if it was
mounted that far out it would clear the tail empennage and the Marine
Corps tests have proved that to be true.
Mr. SIKES. What is the rate of fire?
Mr. LINDSAY. It is a single shot weapon but it is a weapon which
will undoubtedly kill any tank and I might point out any of the
$22,000 to $100,000 guided missiles are one-shot. We do contemplate
carrying programs up to three on each wingtip but our concept of
having an inexpensive airplane would mean if you needed more
rounds you would put out more airplanes and perhaps to use a term
I think I heard you use, confound and confuse the enemy by coming
in from different directions.
Mr. SIKES. Why would you not use missiles rather than the recoil-
less cannon if it is a single-shot capability?
Mr. LINDSAY. Because of the economy. The cost of a recoilless can-
non round is about $70 or $75. The cost at present of a Maverick mis-
sile, for which the Enforcer is qualified, by the way, is approximately,
I believe, $22,000 at its lowest price. There may be a lower price, but
I heard of nothing lower. Some of the missiles are $100,000 a copy.
We figure if you can kill a tank for $75 and if you can land in a field
and pick up extra rounds from the Army, it is a pretty darned good
idea.
Mr. SIKES. What other weapons would the Enforcer normally
carry?
Mr. LINDSAY. Well, the Enforcer has been through a steady test at
the Weapons Center at Eglin Air Force Base and we have been
cleared across the board for all weapons in the inventory, nonnuclear
inventory, in our weight category, which means the 1,000-pound nomi-
nal weight category maximum.
35-503 74 23
350
Mr. SIKES. What is the largest number of 106 mm firings that has
been conducted from any one aircraft
Mr. LINDSAY. The only firings today were lifting up the aircraft on
a crane and firing it and I think they fired a total of SIX rounds at that
time. They have done a great deal of flying with the aircraft assy-
metrically loaded with the weapons. The firing will take place in the
next few days.
LOCKHEED AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION
In August 1973 Lockheed Aircraft purchased manufacturing rights
to the Enforcer, lending its considerable high-technology engineering
expertise to an evaluation program then underway by the Marine
Corps, the Naval Air Systems Command, and the Joint Technical
Coordinating Group for Air Survivability. This study was initiated
in 1973 by Deputy Secretary of Defense William Clements at the sug-
gestion of a number of concerned members of the Appropriations and
Armed Services Committees of both Houses.
Earlier that year I had undertaken an extensive effort to acquaint
members of these committees of the availability of the Enforcer, and
of a disturbing gap in the air operations spectrum between jet fighters
and armed helicopters. This very dangerous gap is not officially
recognized by the Air Force. However, we have encountered a num-
ber of experienced officers, in all the services, who admit deep con-
cern over its existence.
The Air Force remains adamantly dedicated to pure jets for attack
aircraft-ruling out utiliation of the Enforcer or any other propjet-
whatever its merits and advantages.
SERVICE RIVALRY
And since, under an obsolete agreement made in 1957 between the
then Army and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force continues
to retain responsibility for providing close air support for the Army,
this inflexible policy also bars the Army from utilizing fixed-wing, at-
tack propjets. In my considered opinion, based on years of work in
this specialized field, this insistence on jets means the Nation is taking
unacceptable security risks in the field of close air support. I might
add that a number of Army officers with whom we have talked feel it is
totally unjustified for the Air Force to object to Army's acquisition of
an aircraft the Air Force doesn't want.
Of almost equal significance to this committee is a very recent, still
unreleased Pentagon study which proves the Enforcer would cost
only a fraction of other close air support weapons such as the Harrier
and the A-10. Both of these utilize jet engines which are not as effective
or efficient in close support work as propjet engines-but many times
more costly and vulnerable.
INSURANCE THROUGH NUMBERS
Even if viewed only as a standby option should present hopes and
performance estimates in the close air support weapons field prove
overly optimistic, the Enforcer offer prudent and economical insur-
ance for the Nation.
Gen. George S. Brown points out in this month's issue of Air
Force magazine that aircraft of "long endurance, high survivability,
351
and great firepower" will be needed to "offset the massive numerical
armor advantages to the Warsaw Pact compared to NATO."
Last year in Germany I had the opportunity to discuss this NATO
defense problem with Gen. Guenther Rall, Gen. Adolph Galland,
and others. They pointed out that it must be assumed all jet-capa-
ble airfields are pretargeted and that within an hour of a major at-
tack, all airbases in the forward combat zone will be rendered in-
operable.
A relatively large number of propjets, capable of operating from
short and unimproved fields, requiring no external starters or other
support equipment and minimum maintenance, equipped with standoff
missiles such as Mavericks, 30-mm gun pods, and 160-mm recoilless can-
nons, may offer our only aerial weapon capable, under these conditions,
of effectively assisting NATO ground forces in checking in the tens of
thousands of tanks now deployed against them. No matter how ca-
pable, a relatively few multimillion-dollar aircraft cannot cope with
the numbers and distances involved. As Senator Barry Goldwater
said in U.S. News a few weeks ago: "One expensive aircraft may be
better than one inexpensive plane, but it is not better than five."
At Lockheed's proposed cost of $0.76 million per copy, flyaway, in
a quantity buy of only 250, the Enforcer is the only existing close air
support weapon which can provide the numbers capability at an
affordable price. For example, the acquisition cost of 2,000 Enforcers
at $700,000 per copy would be $1.4 billion.
FLIGHT TESTS NEEDED
Because of the Enforcer's unique operating capabilities and low
price, a number of well-informed members of the Senate and House
have persisted in urging the Department of Defense to conduct oper-
ational flight tests with two to four prototypes. They have not, and
we have not, asked that the Enforcer be put into production or into
any Service's inventory. Therefore I am not here today to urge ap-
propriation of funds to open a production line. I am, however, plead-
ing with the committee to help us obtain meaningful flight tests, the
only way to demonstrate the Enforcer concept and capability to the
Congress and to the Nation. To quote Senator Goldwater again:
"There is no way a computer can fly an airplane. Someone with eyes
and a brain has to do that." General George Brown agreed when he
said that, after all paper evaluation, "all we've got is the point at which
an experimental test pilot has to strap on a piece of hardware, take it
into the real world, apply all his hard-earned knowledge and skill-
and tell us what we really have."
Last year we seemed very near our flight test goal. Deputy Secretary
of Defense Clements had ordered a full engineering and survivability
evaluation. To avoid disagreement over roles and missions, he tasked
the Marines to conduct the evaluation. Mr. Clements told me and
others in our meeting that if a full "paper" evaluation proved promis-
ing, we would then move on to flight tests. Before this very committee
last May, Marine Commandant Robert Cushman, in answer to Con-
gressman Robert Sikes' question, "Is this another paper study
replied "No sir, I think we will have to fly it to get all the deter-
minations."
The evaluation conducted by the Marines, the Naval Air Systems
Command, and Joint Test Coordinating Group for Air Survivability
352
was certainly a thorough one, consuming more than a year. Opponents
claimed to have discovered one deficiency after another. But the study
disproved all these objections. It's now officially admitted the En-
forcer will do everything we have claimed.
Lockheed has quoted a flight test package price of $6 million for a
full engineering program, the existing prototype plus three other
prototypes, company flight tests, and engineering support of military
flight tests. But each time we neared a decision to proceed, Air Force
representatives, as jealous custodians of the role of close air support of
ground forces, intervened in various ways to block a favorable
decision.
THE "No REQUIREMENT" BARRIER
We are at the point todav where the Pentagon has been forced to
admit after its own exhaustive study that the Enforcer will do all we
have claimed it will do, and at very low acquisition cost. The bar now
to operational flight tests is a remarkable conclusion-that because
there is no sponsoring Service, there is therefore no requirement for
the aircraft. We are therefore back to square one-there was no official
requirement when our effort began, but a very obvious need. That need
becomes more obvious almost daily as doubts accumulate about overly
sophisticated close support systems.
APPEAL TO CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman, and members. let me repeat here that I do not appear
today to ask you to fund the Enforcer for production. I do believe,
however, it's going to require from Congress something more than the
usual inquiries to the Pentagon to end this calculated pattern of delay
in which the services are protecting one another's pet concepts and
projects. In fact, we have reluctantly come to the conclusion only strong
congressional direction. admittedly an approach Congress prefers to
avoid, will end this exercise in semantics and produce the factual data
and meaningful close-support comparisons Congress and the American
people are entitled to.
In this connection, only last week Chairman F. Edward Hébert of
the House Armed Services Committee told the House his committee
was asking $200 million to keep F-111 production lines open, as insur-
ance in case the troubled B-1 bomber program is canceled.
Surely $6 million to build. test fly, and demonstrate the new, eco-
nomical close-support concept represented by the Enforcer is a reason-
able price for insurance that our ground soldiers will have effective and
sufficient close air support in case the also-troubled A-10 or Harrier
programs are canceled or prove fiascoes.
We have. in this connection. discussed flight testing the Enforcer
with both Chairman Hébert and Chairman John Stennis of the Senate
Armed Forces Committee. Both assured us they would support a re-
quest from the Pentagon for flight test funds-requests which have
never been forthcoming.
Gentlemen, Congress is the American people's "court of last resort,"
and in the ultimate, the custodian of the security of the Nation. It is in
recognition of this awesome responsibility that I have appeared before
you today.
Mr. SIKES. You realize, of course, a number of Members of Congress,
including members of this committee, including myself, have felt this
353
aircraft should have a complete test. We have been interested in the
low-cost feature and its economy of operation and as new equipment
costs more and becomes more sophisticated, we feel that any reasonable
promise of a less costly but useful weapon such as this should receive
full testing.
Now, as you also know, the military has not indicated a desire to do
this test. They haven't stated that they want the aircraft. They haven't
asked for it. What you are suggesting is that the Congress simply
appropriate funds and direct that appropriate test be made. Is that
correct?
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes. I do regretfully come to the conclusion that is the
only way it will be tested. I have been amazed at the opposition.
Mr. SIKES. Congress is generally reluctant to take such steps when
there is no request from any branch of the military. Now, if Con-
gress were to do so, there would be no assurance whatever that the
money would be spent. The impoundments have been frequent in
the last few years and those impoundments have been gotten into
areas where there had been requests and demonstrated needs for
funding.
Now, what is the advantage in an appropriation which has very
little likelihood of being utilized?
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Sikes, I just cannot believe that the military is
going to continue what I can only describe as an almost contemptuous
attitude toward the wishes of Congress on this matter. I have had
very high ranking officers tell me that they find the situation unbe-
lievable and nearly incredible.
I think actually there exists a great body of officers at the higher
levels who might want to do this. Now I have been reading Mr.
Schlesinger's positions, I never had the pleasure of meeting with
him, I hope to meet with him, but I think I read in his statements
almost what I am saying.
Mr. Levine of the Wall Street Journal who has an interesting
article today on the Enforcer.
Mr. SIKES. I have seen this article and I am going to place it in
the record at this point.
Mr. LINDSAY. I appreciate that.
[The article follows:]
[From the Wall Street Journal, May 30, 1974]
AN ATTACK AIRCRAFT THAT'S CHEAP, Good GETS COLD SHOULDER
PROTOTYPE SITS IN STORAGE, IGNORED BY THE PENTAGON THREAT TO PET
PROJECTS?
(By Richard J. Levine)
Washington-It can take a lot to shake the Pentagon's weapons-building
bureaucracy out of its accustomed ways-more, apparently, than even the for-
midable ingenuity and persistence of aircraft designer David B. Lindsay, Jr.
Mr. Lindsay, who is also a wealthy Florida newspaper publisher, has been try-
ing for 3 years to interest the Defense Department in his design for an attack
aircraft to provide close support to ground troops. He has built a rugged little
warplane, called the Enforcer, that packs a potent punch. carries a bargain-
basement price tag, gets high marks for performance-and leaves the Pentagon
cold.
Designer Lindsay has run into one bureaucratic roadblock after another. He
has failed to persuade the Pentagon to give the Enforcer a full-scale flight test,
much less consider buying it.
354
"I'm totally frustrated," he says. "We aren't selling anything. We're just
trying to get the plane tested. The Defense Department has given up knocking
the airplane and now says, "There's no requirement for it.' "
The apparent reason for official coolness is simply that the military brass fears
that the Enforcer would show up, or even threaten, such pet projects as the
Air Force's new A10 attack jet and the Marine Corps' vertical-liftoff Harrier;
those planes, which are designed for the same close-support role as the Enforcer,
are more costly and complex.
"The services are closing every door they can," says a staff member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee. "The Enforcer is too practical and too cheap
1
to appeal to them."
Lonely Storage
And SO the prototype plane, developed entirely with funds put up by Mr.
Lindsay and Piper Aircraft Corp., sits in lonely storage in Vero Beach, Fla.,
far from the wild blue yonder.
[Mr. Lindsay is an unpaid consultant both to Piper, which bought the proto-
type, patents and manufacturing rights from him in late 1970, and to Lockheed
Aircraft Corp., which last year made an agreement with Piper that could give
it manufacturing rights.]
Ironically, Pentagon rebuffs of the Enforcer have coincided with calls from
Defense Secretary James Schlesinger for simpler, cheaper warplanes. And offi-
cials concede that Mr. Lindsay's baby is such a craft-and more besides. After
seeing Air Force and Marine Corps studies of the Enforcer, Deputy Defense
Secretary William Clements, the Pentagon procurement chief, wrote: "There is
little question the Enforcer can meet the general performance claims."
But he added that "neither service sees a role for Enforcer in the combat
scenarios on which their future plans for aircraft inventories are based." Charles
Meyers, assistant director of Defense Department research for air warfare,
puts it more plainly. "It's a nifty little airplane," ne says. "But unfortunately
the office of Secretary of Defense doesn't have the power to stimulate the services
to have a need for the thing."
Uncomplicated and Inexpensive
What intrigues Mr. Meyers and other aircraft experts is that the Enforcer is
uncomplicated and inexpensive. [At an estimated $770,000 each, it would cost
a lot less than the Harrier's $4.3 million and the A10's $3.4 million.] The
Enforcer can operate from short, rough runways, stay aloft for long periods
and deliver heavy firepower-ideal qualities for close-support aircraft.
The Enforcer has a speed range of 86 to 440 miles an hour and is heavily
armored to protect the pilot from ground fire. It mounts six internal 50-caliber
machine guns that can each spit out 1,100 rounds a minute, and it can carry
10 rockets, missiles or bombs.
"As far as shooting up people with guns or stopping tanks with missiles," Mr.
Lindsay says, "we, think the Enforcer will do it as well as or better than the
A10 and at one-fourth the price."
In an age of sleek jets, it's true, the Enforcer hardly appears sexy. It most
resembles the famed World War II P51 Mustang and has, of all things, a pro-
peller. But Mr. Lindsay stresses that the propeller is driven by a jet engine,
which should make for extreme reliability and easy maintenance.
Moreover, he contends that a jet-prop plane like the Enforcer has a significant
advantage over a pure jet in flying slow-and-low close-support missions. Because
most of the heat from the engine is used to turn the propeller, rather than being
pushed out the rear of the engine, the Enforcer should be a lot less vulnerable to
heat-seeking antiaircraft missiles, which proved SO deadly in last October's Mid-
east war.
While the Enforcer generally draws high marks, it isn't faultless. A pilot who
has flown the plane describes it as a "bit of a tail dragger." And Gen. Robert
Cushman, commandant of the Marine Corus. recently wrote that the Enforcer
"would provide a lesser combat capability" than light attack jets currently in
the Marines' inventory. although he didn't make any detailed comparisons.
The Enforcer grew out of Mr. Lindsay's interest in restoring P51 Mustangs dur-
ing the 1960s for sale to Latin Amrican countries through the U.S. Military-
assistance program. Using ideas picked up from American pilots who had flown
in Vietnam, Mr. Lindsay started designing the plane. In the spring of 1971, when
the U.S. Air Force sought ideas for a counterinsurgency plane for the South
Vietnam, he and Piper Aircraft stepped forward with the Enforcer.
an
355
In August 1971, Air Force pilots briefly flew the Enforcer at Eglin Air Force
Base, Fla. One of them, now-retired Major James Tilburg, says today "It did as
much as or more than was designed into the test plan. Technically, it didn't have
all that fancy stuff. It was just a good platform that could take the punishment
and deliver the ordnance."
After these 1971 flights, the designer, Mr. Lindsay says, "we went back to Vero
Beach and waited for an order." When nothing happened, he returned to the
drawing board and kept on improving the aircraft. In early 1973, disgusted at
the Government's inaction, he started making the rounds of Pentagon and Capitol
Hill offices in an effort to win a full-scale flight test of his plane. But all he got
was a paper study-and, last month, word that there isn't any need for the En-
forcer. Today he will tell the full story to the House Appropriations Subcommit-
tee on Defense.
About $3 million has gone into the development of the Enforcer, roughly one-
third of it, from Mr. Lindsay's pocket. A full flight test would cost about $6
million-money that Chairman John Stennis of the Senate Armed Services Com-
mittee has indicated would be available if requested by the Defense Department.
To Mr. Lindsay and such key legislators as Republican Senators Barry Gold-
water of Arizona and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, it makes good sense
to test the Enforcer further. In Mr. Lindsay's view, the plane would provide
"damn cheap insurance" against the failure of the A-10, not yet in production,
and he contends that it would find a large market overseas, especially in Asia.
Perhaps Democratic Representative Robert Sikes of Florida summed up the
situation best a year ago, when he told then-Navy Secretary John Warner during
a hearing:
"I have noted other instances, Mr. Secretary, where weapons systems and
equipment have been offered to the services but because they were not developed
by the testing service, they were given the cold shoulder. I do not think that is
the proper approach.
"I think the services should be willing to test equipment that has promise. The
old P-51 was a great aircraft in its day. That was a long time ago. Maybe it no
longer has any value. But this is a modernized version, and if it does have value,
it could save the government a lot of money. We would like to have more than
paper studies."
Mr. LINDSAY. I know Mr. Levine did travel with Mr. Schlesinger
to Europe and I understand they discussed a great deal the problem
of how to handle tanks economically. Mr. Schlesinger desires to
simplify the system.
Now I come forward as an individual offering something to the
military. If I am turned down after all these years of work, and the
assistance of SO many valued Members of Congress, then I doubt if
many contractors will ever try it again.
Mr. SIKES. This committee is impressed with the fact that your com-
pany and others have expended their own funds in an effort to show
that this is an aircraft which could perform a useful function in the
defense installation. That in itself is a very unusual situation.
You certainly deserve credit for what you have done. I wish you
well. I do not know how much more I can do at the moment.
The Russians are reportedly developing armed helicopters. How
would the Enforcer cope with this threat?
Mr. LINDSAY. Because the Enforcer has a speed range that permits
it to fly very slowly and maneuver very tightly, as well as to accelerate
from slow to high speed rapidly, it is ideally suited to kill helicopters
and its six .50 caliber machineguns are probably the choice weapon
to kill helicopters. Of course, these same qualities make the Enforcer
an ideal escort for friendly helicopters.
Mr. SIKES. Will the Enforcer be easily deployable in Europe?
Mr. LINDSAY. The Enforcer's ability to operate from Europe's
roads and fields makes it unusually well suited for dispersed deploy-
356
ment. We think it's the only aircraft that of its attack lethality capable
of operating from rough or improvised fields. Also, the Enforcer fits
nicely into the expensive hardened revetments built by NATO in re-
cent years, at great cost, which-we are told-are too small to accom-
modate the bomber-size A-10.
Mr. SIKES. Would the Enforcer be able to defend itself against
jet fighters?
Mr. LINDSAY. A popular misconception is that jets would easily shoot
down a propjet such as the Enforcer. Actually, we have had four F-4
Phantom jets bounce the Enforcer. By using the classic defensive
advantage of a much smaller turning radius, the Enforcer avoided
their attacks, by their own-admission. It has, in fact, a good chance
to shoot down jets by turning quickly onto their tails. especially if
carrying Sidewinder missiles, for which it's qualified. Of course, the
Enforcer can't pursue and attack a jet but it has a very good chance
of success if it is attacked at low altitude-where it will always be
operating. It is a defensive, not an offensive, air-to-air weapon.
Mr. SIKES. Could the Enforcer operate off carriers?
Mr. LINDSAY. A little known fact of history is that the Enforcer's
spiritual ancestor, from which it is derived, the F-51D, was fully quali-
fied for the Navy at the end of World War II by Capt. Robert Elder.
Captain Elder is presently president of the Society of Experimental
Test Pilots; he qualified that aircraft both for catapult and clear-deck
operations. The far more powerful and rugged Enforcer possesses
a superior carrier potential; the tailhook installation for the F-51
weighed only 23 pounds and the aft longerons of the Enforcer have
been reinforced to accept such an installation.
Mr. SIKES. Is there any interest in the Enforcer from foreign gov-
ernments?
Mr. LINDSAY. We have discussed this question at length with the
military assistance and military sales people and they feel there is a
large market. We ourselves have been in contact with a number of
countries which have expressed a strong interest in the Enforcer
and its unique capabilities.
Mr. SIKES. Why not use a nosewheel, as jets do, in the Enforcer?
Mr. LINDSAY. It's an inescapable fact that when thrust is applied
around the fulcrum of the main landing gear a nosewheel will dig
into the ground; that prohibits its operation from rough, muddy, or
unprepared fields. By contrast, the Enforcer's upward-thrusting slip-
stream over the wing acts to lift the main landing gear from soft
surfaces. Incidently, we designed and built a nosewheel version but
discarded it for the reasons mentioned above.
Mr. SIKES. Why do you say the Enforcer is less vulnerable in close
support work than jets?
Mr. LINDSAY. It's a much small target. with a very low, diffused
infrared silhouette emanating from one side above a wing, and it is
fitted with the world's best ceramic composition armor, and carried
more armor, per pound of airframe weight, than any aircraft in his-
tory. Its maneuverability makes it well adapted to nap-of-the-earth
terrain protection techniques.
Mr. SIKES. How do you think the Enforcer could be best utilized by
the Air Force and Army?
357
Mr. LINDSAY. Personally, I would like to see Air Force pilots given
Army indoctrination, and assigned to Army at the corps level. The
Enforcer could be used just as heavy corps artillery is used-it would
back up the armed helicopter as the heavy artillery backs up divisional
artillery.
Mr. SIKES. Why could not some of the Air Force's existing jets do
this close-support work?
Mr. LINDSAY. As I mentioned in my prepared statement, we are now
talking about close-support operations where our troops are in very
close proximity to enemy forces. High-speed, swept-wing jets, with
ordnance on wing stations, cannot slow up sufficiently, or turn tightly
enough, to deliver with sufficient accuracy, or even to abort the pass if
they find they are likely to strike their own forces. In general, of
course, it is uneconomical and illogical to risk multimillion dollar, jet
aircraft, designed for high-altitude operations, on low-altitude, close-
support tasks where great speed is detrimental to efficient delivery.
Mr. SIKES. Have you discussed this aircraft with the military assist-
ance program people?
Mr. LINDSAY. We have discussed the Enforcer with the military
assistance people from the top down, including Adm. Ray Peet, who
told us he thought he would have customers for the Enforcer if it were
put through a normal service test program or if he himself had funds
to test it.
Mr. SIKES. Do you have information on the attitude of the Army
toward Enforcers?
Mr. LINDSAY. While this is a very delicate arena for an outsider to
probe into, I would just like to say we have met with a number of
Army officers of all grades in recent years who feel, privately, almost
to a man, that they need the Enforcer or something like it to supple-
ment their armed helicopters. They don't care too much what the color
of the suit the pilot wears is, but they want someone to work directly
with Army units rather than relying on centralized computer control.
Mr. SIKES. How can Congress be sure of the facts about the En-
forcer?
Mr. LINDSAY. Well, we are not dealing here with a paper airplane.
we are dealing with an aircraft which is already built and tested and
with performance figures that are the result of private flight tests.
Only an operational flight test will finally establish the facts—
and that is what we are asking. My concept of a meaningful flight test
program is to supply equal quantities of fuel and munitions at a se-
lected military range, where an equal dollar value of competitive air-
craft would compete on identical missions with the Enforcer. They
should be tested under the direct surveillance of the GAO, tests being
conducted in varying climatic areas, as was done many yearse ago.
Mr. SIKES. How would the Enforcer deliver its ordnance in a high-
risk, highly defended environment?
Mr. LINDSAY. Either with long-range stand-off missiles. for which
it is already qualified (E/O. FLIR, LASER, etc.) or with a nap-of-
the-earth approach, such as helicopters execute, popping up just long
enough to deliver the required ordnance.
Mr. SIKES. Should not the Enforcer be capable of greater speed?
Mr. LINDSAY. The Air Force says the A-10 was designed with the
ideal speed range for close support. The Enforcer has a wider speed
358
range than the A-10, and is capable of flying safely at much slower
speeds and at faster speeds. This would seem to indicate the speed is
correct for the mission.
Mr. SIKES. Are there questions?
Mr. FLYNT. Yes; more of a comment than a question.
Mr. Lindsay, I am favorably impressed by the concept which you
have developed in this and your willingness to proceed as near as
I can tell without much help from the Department of Defense.
I was also impressed by your statement that if this plan, this con-
cept which you have not only outlined but which you have definitively
described very well, if the flight test does not take place, that it is
quite likely that it will be a long time, if ever, before any person in
the free-enterprise sector would ever spend the money, the energy, and
the time that you have.
At this point in time, I do not think that either you, members of
this committee, or other people could say whether or not it will be the
success that you claim it will be, or the failure that the detractors of
the Enforcers say it will be.
I think that only a comprehensive flight test will prove the accuracy
of your statements or the accuracy of those who seek to refute your
statements.
What would it cost to have a meaningful flight test?
Mr. LINDSAY. Lockheed's proposal is for four prototypes.
Mr. FLYNT. At about $760,000 a copy
Mr. LINDSAY. The total engineering package that the military is
going to demand of them to include wind tunnel tests comes to about
$6 million, to include the hardware, all the engineering, all the sup-
port, and everything else.
I consider that very reasonable insurance in case the HARRIER or
the A-10 does not quite make the grade.
Mr. FLYNT. This appears to be a case in which you have voluntarily
done the R.D.T. & E. effort.
Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. FLYNT. Or at least the R. & D. effort.
Mr. LINDSAY. I have done all a civilian can do and perhaps a little
more in that I have actually flown the plane some 50 hours. I have
delivered weapons from it at a nice little range they have at Apalachi-
cola, Fla.; I am speaking from the knowledge of what I know it
will do, I fired 114 rockets in one salvo from the thing.
It does what I say. My statement is not good enough for the military,
it is not good enough for the Congress, it is not good enough for the
foreign countries that might be interested in it. Only what you say,
a comprehensive flight test, will answer it.
Mr. FLYNT. You have done the R. & D. work on it, now you are
asking this committee to attempt to direct the Department of Defense
to do some test and evaluation of what you have done up to now?
Mr. LINDSAY. That sums it up, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Are there further statements or questions?
Mr. FLYNT. Thank you for your statement and your appearance,
Mr. Lindsay.
Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Lindsay.
Mr. LINDSAY. Thank you for the privilege of being here.
REPRINT FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
©
1974 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
EASTERN EDITION
THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1974
MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION-PRINCETON. NEW
An Attack Aircraft
That's Cheap, Good
Gets Cold Shoulder
# # *
Prototype Sits in Storage,
Ignored by the Pentagon;
Threat to Pet Projects?
By RICHARD J. LEVINE
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
The item described below has been transferred from this file to:
X
Audiovisual Unit
Book Collection
Ford Museum in Grand Rapids
Item:
/ 8x 10 color photo
7
Enforcer Aircraft
6 8x10 B&W photos
The item was transferred from: John O. Marsh Files
General subject File
Defense- Enforcer Close Air
Support Aircraft
Initials/Date WHM 12/4/85
(Color)
PHOTO
DAVID 1:. 111
The ENFORCER, world's only jet turbine propellor-driven close support aircraft,
is shown making a sweep over jungle terrain, carrying ordnance on all 10 of its
underwing weapons stations. The load includes two 1000 lb. fire bombs, two flare
dispensers containing 16 each two million candle power flares, two 19 round 2. 75 in.
anti-tank rocket launchers, and four 7 round 2. 75 in. rocket launchers. The muzzles
of the six 50 caliber machine guns mounted inside the wings are barely visible. Two
thousand rounds of ammunition for the guns are also in the wings. Fuel tanks can be
mounted on the underwing racks, but this is rarely necessary due to the wing-tip fuel
tanks and self-sealing fuel tanks within the wings, plus the extremely low fuel con-
sumption of the Lycoming T-55 engine (which also powers the Army's CH-47 Chinook
helicopter). The ENFORCER carries more protective armor for its size than any
aircraft in history. The cockpit is equipped with the latest Hamilton-Standard environ-
mental controls and a rocket extraction seat or the Stencel ejection seat. (No. 2)
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
*
World's only jet turbine, propellor-driven, low/high threat close support aircraft.
*
Uniquely low fuel consumption conserves critical fuel supplies and gives longest loiter time.
*
First U.S. combat aircraft designed, built and privately tested without any Government financing.
Developed especially for direct fire support of ground troops (close air support).
*
All alloy aluminum construction permits low price, quantity buys, and field repair.
Uniquely fills operational spectrum between armed helicopter and pure jet.
More armor per pound of airframe weight than any aircraft in the world.
Uncomplicated armament controls, in peripheral view of pilot. (Lindsay Patent)
Smallest silhouette, lowest infrared signature, lowest noise level, fastest acceleration, and
highest survivability of any attack aircraft.
Engine hot section forward of all flammable liquids (no fuel in fuselage).
*
Lycoming T-55 same basic inventory engine as Army's standard medium helicopter, the CH-47
Chinook. Army holding as excess more than 300 of these engines removed from Chinooks.
(Chinooks being retrofitted to higher horsepower.)
Large world-wide market already identified by DoD.
*
Six 50 caliber (12. 7 mm) machine guns, with 2000 rounds of ammunition, internally in wings.
Optionally, 2-20 mm. 3-barrel GE Gatling guns.
*
Ten under-wing stations for all standard inventory ordnance, including missiles.
Wide speed range (78-403 knots) and high maneuverability permit operating under low cloud ceil-
ings, in mountainous areas, and under its own flares at night.
*
Performance proven by tests of flying prototype--not theoretically projected.
Ideal tank killer and helicopter escort or helicopter killer.
*
Capable of operating from short, unprepared fields in combat zone to obtain fuel, 50 caliber and
106 mm. ammunition from ground combat units. (Commonality !)
Low initial cost, extremely low operation and maintenance time and costs (less than $150/flying
hour) resulting in high in-commission rate.
*
Ferryable world-wide without air-to-air refueling.
*
Simplicity guarantees ease of pilot and ground crew training, plus effective utilization in all
countries.
For further information, please telephone or write:
David B. Lindsay
Area Code 813/958-7755
Box 1746, Sarasota, FL 33578
ENFORCER
a
-
No-
The small but potent ENFORCER, with empty weight of only 7055 lbs., is shown
carrying more than its own weight in weapons and fuel. Shown underwing, from
left to right, are 1000 lb. fire bomb, 16-round flare dispenser, 19-round anti-tank
rocket launcher, and two 7-round rocket launchers, the outboard one having fired
its rockets. Due to the high power but light weight of the Lycoming T-55 engine,
the ENFORCER is able to utilize molded armor to protect the engine, pilot, and all
critical areas against heavy automatic weapons fire, with more armor per pound of
airframe weight than any aircraft in history. Muzzles of the six internally mounted
50 caliber machine guns are barely visible in the leading edge of the wings, which
also contain 2000 rounds of ammunition and self-sealing fuel tanks. The airconditioned
cockpit contains a full complement of USAF communication and navigation equipment.
The pilot is sitting on a Yankee rocket extraction seat. The aircraft also accepts the
Stencel ejection seat. (No. 6)
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
*
World's only jet turbine, propellor-driven, low/high threat close support aircraft.
Uniquely low fuel consumption conserves critical fuel supplies and gives longest loiter time.
*
First U.S. combat aircraft designed, built and privately tested without any Government financing.
*
Developed especially for direct fire support of ground troops (close air support).
*
All alloy aluminum construction permits low price, quantity buys, and field repair.
Uniquely fills operational spectrum between armed helicopter and pure jet.
More armor per pound of airframe weight than any aircraft in the world.
*
Uncomplicated armament controls, in peripheral view of pilot. (Lindsay Patent)
Smallest silhouette, lowest infrared signature, lowest noise level, fastest acceleration, and
highest survivability of any attack aircraft.
Engine hot section forward of all flammable liquids (no fuel in fuselage).
*
Lycoming T-55 same basic inventory engine as Army's standard medium helicopter, the CH-47
Chinook. Army holding as excess more than 300 of these engines removed from Chinooks.
(Chinooks being retrofitted to higher horsepower.)
*
Large world-wide market already identified by DoD.
Six 50 caliber (12. 7 mm) machine guns, with 2000 rounds of ammunition, internally in wings.
Optionally, 2-20 mm. 3-barrel GE Gatling guns.
*
Ten under-wing stations for all standard inventory ordnance, including missiles.
Wide speed range (78-403 knots) and high maneuverability permit operating under low cloud ceil-
ings, in mountainous areas, and under its own flares at night.
*
Performance proven by tests of flying prototype--not theoretically projected.
*
Ideal tank killer and helicopter escort or helicopter killer.
*
Capable of operating from short, unprepared fields in combat zone to obtain fuel, 50 caliber and
106 mm. ammunition from ground combat units. (Commonality !)
*
Low initial cost, extremely low operation and maintenance time and costs (less than $150/flying
hour) resulting in high in-commission rate.
*
Ferryable world-wide without air-to-air refueling.
*
Simplicity guarantees ease of pilot and ground crew training, plus effective utilization in all
countries.
For further information, please telephone or write:
David B. Lindsay
Area Code 813/958-7755
Box 1746, Sarasota, FL 33578
ENFORCER with 10 underwing weapons ovlons and aix internal 50 caliber marhine
ENFORCER with 10 underwing weapons pylons and six internal 50 caliber machine
guns. Fuel is carried in wing-tip tanks and in self-sealing fuel cells in wings.
Weighing only 7055 lbs. empty, the aircraft carries more than its own weight in
munitions and fuel. Powered by a Lycoming T-55 engine, it is the world's only jet
turbine propellor-driven close support aircraft capable of operating in light or high
intensity hostile environments. Two of its four landing lights can be seen in the
noses of its tip-tanks. (No. 4)
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
*
World's only jet turbine, propellor-driven, low/high threat close support aircraft.
Uniquely low fuel consumption conserves critical fuel supplies and gives longest loiter time.
*
First U.S. combat aircraft designed, built and privately tested without any Government financing.
*
Developed especially for direct fire support of ground troops (close air support).
*
All alloy aluminum construction permits low price, quantity buys, and field repair.
*
Uniquely fills operational spectrum between armed helicopter and pure jet.
More armor per pound of airframe weight than any aircraft in the world.
*
Uncomplicated armament controls, in peripheral view of pilot. (Lindsay Patent)
Smallest silhouette, lowest infrared signature, lowest noise level, fastest acceleration, and
highest survivability of any attack aircraft.
Engine hot section forward of all flammable liquids (no fuel in fuselage).
*
Lycoming T-55 same basic inventory engine as Army's standard medium helicopter, the CH-47
Chinook. Army holding as excess more than 300 of these engines removed from Chinooks.
(Chinooks being retrofitted to higher horsepower.)
Large world-wide market already identified by DoD.
*
Six 50 caliber (12. 7 mm) machine guns, with 2000 rounds of ammunition, internally in wings.
Optionally, 2-20 mm. 3-barrel GE Gatling guns.
*
Ten under-wing stations for all standard inventory ordnance, including missiles.
Wide speed range (78-403 knots) and high maneuverability permit operating under low cloud ceil-
ings, in mountainous areas, and under its own flares at night.
Performance proven by tests of flying prototype--not theoretically projected.
*
Ideal tank killer and helicopter escort or helicopter killer.
*
Capable of operating from short, unprepared fields in combat zone to obtain fuel, 50 caliber and
106 mm. ammunition from ground combat units. (Commonality !)
*
Low initial cost, extremely low operation and maintenance time and costs (less than $150/flying
hour) resulting in high in-commission rate.
*
Ferryable world-wide without air-to-air refueling.
*
Simplicity guarantees ease of pilot and ground crew training, plus effective utilization in all
countries.
For further information, please telephone or write:
David B. Lindsay
Area Code 813/958-7755
Box 1746, Sarasota, FL 33578
N201PE
ENFORCER
ENFORCER
The ENFORCER's extremely low infrared profile to heat-seeking missiles results
from over 95% of its energy being used to turn a propellor, with the small residual
thrust exhausted through the patented over-wing system shown on the port side of
the aircraft. The light weight of the Lycoming T-55 engine permits the use of more
protective armor than on any other aircraft of comparable size. At the leading edge
of the left wing can be seen the muzzles of three of the six 50 caliber machine guns
mounted inside the wings, together with 2000 rounds of ammunition. The aircraft
also has 10 under-wing weapons pylons. (No. 3)
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
*
World's only jet turbine, propellor-driven, low/high threat close support aircraft.
*
Uniquely low fuel consumption conserves critical fuel supplies and gives longest loiter time.
*
First U.S. combat aircraft designed, built and privately tested without any Government financing.
Developed especially for direct fire support of ground troops (close air support).
*
All alloy aluminum construction permits low price, quantity buys, and field repair.
Uniquely fills operational spectrum between armed helicopter and pure jet.
More armor per pound of airframe weight than any aircraft in the world.
*
Uncomplicated armament controls, in peripheral view of pilot. (Lindsay Patent)
Smallest silhouette, lowest infrared signature, lowest noise level, fastest acceleration, and
highest survivability of any attack aircraft.
Engine hot section forward of all flammable liquids (no fuel in fuselage).
*
Lycoming T-55 same basic inventory engine as Army's standard medium helicopter, the CH-47
Chinook. Army holding as excess more than 300 of these engines removed from Chinooks.
(Chinooks being retrofitted to higher horsepower.)
Large world-wide market already identified by DoD.
Six 50 caliber (12. 7 mm) machine guns, with 2000 rounds of ammunition, internally in wings.
Optionally, 2-20 mm. 3-barrel GE Gatling guns.
*
Ten under-wing stations for all standard inventory ordnance, including missiles.
Wide speed range (78-403 knots) and high maneuverability permit operating under low cloud ceil-
ings, in mountainous areas, and under its own flares at night.
Performance proven by tests of flying prototype--not theoretically projected.
Ideal tank killer and helicopter escort or helicopter killer.
Capable of operating from short, unprepared fields in combat zone to obtain fuel, 50 caliber and
106 mm. ammunition from ground combat units. (Commonality !)
*
Low initial cost, extremely low operation and maintenance time and costs (less than $150/flying
hour) resulting in high in-commission rate.
*
Ferryable world-wide without air-to-air refueling.
*
Simplicity guarantees ease of pilot and ground crew training, plus effective utilization in all
countries.
For further information, please telephone or write:
David B. Lindsay
Area Code 813/958-7755
Box 1746, Sarasota, FL 33578
1
$
This gun camera photo, taken during live ordnance weapons testing, shows the
ENFORCER carrying two 1000 lb. finned fire bombs, two 16-round flare dis-
pensers, and two 7-round rocket launchers, with the muzzles of its six internally
mounted machine guns protruding from the leading edge of the wing. Additionally,
2000 rounds of cal. 50 ammunition are carried. (No. 1)
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
*
World's only jet turbine, propellor-driven, low/high threat close support aircraft.
*
Uniquely low fuel consumption conserves critical fuel supplies and gives longest loiter time.
*
First U.S. combat aircraft designed, built and privately tested without any Government financing.
*
Developed especially for direct fire support of ground troops (close air support).
*
All alloy aluminum construction permits low price, quantity buys, and field repair.
*
Uniquely fills operational spectrum between armed helicopter and pure jet.
*
More armor per pound of airframe weight than any aircraft in the world.
*
Uncomplicated armament controls, in peripheral view of pilot. (Lindsay Patent)
Smallest silhouette, lowest infrared signature, lowest noise level, fastest acceleration, and
highest survivability of any attack aircraft.
Engine hot section forward of all flammable liquids (no fuel in fuselage).
*
Lycoming T-55 same basic inventory engine as Army's standard medium helicopter, the CH-47
Chinook. Army holding as excess more than 300 of these engines removed from Chinooks.
(Chinooks being retrofitted to higher horsepower.)
*
Large world-wide market already identified by DoD.
*
Six 50 caliber (12. 7 mm) machine guns, with 2000 rounds of ammunition, internally in wings.
Optionally, 2-20 mm. 3-barrel GE Gatling guns.
Ten under-wing stations for all standard inventory ordnance, including missiles.
Wide speed range (78-403 knots) and high maneuverability permit operating under low cloud ceil-
ings, in mountainous areas, and under its own flares at night.
Performance proven by tests of flying prototype--not theoretically projected.
*
Ideal tank killer and helicopter escort or helicopter killer.
*
Capable of operating from short, unprepared fields in combat zone to obtain fuel, 50 caliber and
106 mm. ammunition from ground combat units. (Commonality !)
*
Low initial cost, extremely low operation and maintenance time and costs (less than $150/flying
hour) resulting in high in-commission rate.
*
Ferryable world-wide without air-to-air refueling.
*
Simplicity guarantees ease of pilot and ground crew training, plus effective utilization in all
countries.
For further information, please telephone or write:
David B. Lindsay
Area Code 813/958-7755
Box 1746, Sarasota, FL 33578
the
The ENFORCER during assymetrical separation tests of BLU-27B finned fire bombs.
This store is considered to be one of the most critical for fit and separation, but
the drops were clean and instantaneous without need of explosive charges. The
other BLU-27B had been dropped earlier. Other munitions being carried are two
16-round flare pods and two 19-round 2. 75 in. rocket launchers, in addition to the
six internally mounted 50 caliber machine guns. This same configuration was
flown at night, with all of the ordnance being dispensed on target under the light of
flares dropped by ENFORCER itself. (Gun camera photo) (No. 7)
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
*
World's only jet turbine, propellor-driven, low/high threat close support aircraft.
Uniquely low fuel consumption conserves critical fuel supplies and gives longest loiter time.
First U.S. combat aircraft designed, built and privately tested without any Government financing.
Developed especially for direct fire support of ground troops (close air support).
All alloy aluminum construction permits low price, quantity buys, and field repair.
Uniquely fills operational spectrum between armed helicopter and pure jet.
More armor per pound of airframe weight than any aircraft in the world.
*
Uncomplicated armament controls, in peripheral view of pilot. (Lindsay Patent)
Smallest silhouette, lowest infrared signature, lowest noise level, fastest acceleration, and
highest survivability of any attack aircraft.
Engine hot section forward of all flammable liquids (no fuel in fuselage).
*
Lycoming T-55 same basic inventory engine as Army's standard medium helicopter, the CH-47
Chinook. Army holding as excess more than 300 of these engines removed from Chinooks.
(Chinooks being retrofitted to higher horsepower.)
Large world-wide market already identified by DoD.
Six 50 caliber (12. 7 mm) machine guns, with 2000 rounds of ammunition, internally in wings.
Optionally, 2-20 mm. 3-barrel GE Gatling guns.
Ten under-wing stations for all standard inventory ordnance, including missiles.
Wide speed range (78-403 knots) and high maneuverability permit operating under low cloud ceil-
ings, in mountainous areas, and under its own flares at night.
*
Performance proven by tests of flying prototype--not theoretically projected.
Ideal tank killer and helicopter escort or helicopter killer.
*
Capable of operating from short, unprepared fields in combat zone to obtain fuel, 50 caliber and
106 mm. ammunition from ground combat units. (Commonality !)
*
Low initial cost, extremely low operation and maintenance time and costs (less than $150/flying
hour) resulting in high in-commission rate.
Ferryable world-wide without air-to-air refueling.
*
Simplicity guarantees ease of pilot and ground crew training, plus effective utilization in all
countries.
For further information, please telephone or write:
David B. Lindsay
Area Code 813/958-7755
Box 1746, Sarasota, FL 33578
ENFORCER carrying live ordnance on 10 underwing stations, with six M-3 50 caliber
machine guns with 2000 rounds of ammunition hidden inside the wings. Fuel is in the
wing-tip tanks and the self-sealing fuel cells inside the wings. Weapons being carried
are two 1000 lb. finned fire bombs, two 16-round flare pods, two 19-round 2. 75 in.
rocket pods and four 7-round 2. 75 in. rocket pods. The aircraft, which is the world's
only jet turbine close support aircraft capable of operating in low or high intensity
hostile environment, is powered by 2445 SHP Lycoming T-55 turbine engine. (No. 5)
ENFORCER AIRCRAFT
*
World's only jet turbine, propellor-driven, low/high threat close support aircraft.
Uniquely low fuel consumption conserves critical fuel supplies and gives longest loiter time.
First U.S. combat aircraft designed, built and privately tested without any Government financing.
*
Developed especially for direct fire support of ground troops (close air support).
All alloy aluminum construction permits low price, quantity buys, and field repair.
*
Uniquely fills operational spectrum between armed helicopter and pure jet.
More armor per pound of airframe weight than any aircraft in the world.
Uncomplicated armament controls, in peripheral view of pilot. (Lindsay Patent)
Smallest silhouette, lowest infrared signature, lowest noise level, fastest acceleration, and
highest survivability of any attack aircraft.
Engine hot section forward of all flammable liquids (no fuel in fuselage).
*
Lycoming T-55 same basic inventory engine as Army's standard medium helicopter, the CH-47
Chinook. Army holding as excess more than 300 of these engines removed from Chinooks.
(Chinooks being retrofitted to higher horsepower.)
Large world-wide market already identified by DoD.
Six 50 caliber (12. 7 mm) machine guns, with 2000 rounds of ammunition, internally in wings.
Optionally, 2-20 mm. 3-barrel GE Gatling guns.
*
Ten under-wing stations for all standard inventory ordnance, including missiles.
Wide speed range (78-403 knots) and high maneuverability permit operating under low cloud ceil-
ings, in mountainous areas, and under its own flares at night.
Performance proven by tests of flying prototype-not theoretically projected.
Ideal tank killer and helicopter escort or helicopter killer.
*
Capable of operating from short, unprepared fields in combat zone to obtain fuel, 50 caliber and
106 mm. ammunition from ground combat units. (Commonality !)
Low initial cost, extremely low operation and maintenance time and costs (less than $150/flying
hour) resulting in high in-commission rate.
Ferryable world-wide without air-to-air refueling.
*
Simplicity guarantees ease of pilot and ground crew training, plus effective utilization in all
countries.
For further information, please telephone or write:
David B. Lindsay
Area Code 813/958-7755
Box 1746, Sarasota, FL 33578