They have a current stable of operational boosters that have launched over 1,600 spacecraft. Our current stable of space-launch boosters have accounted for three launches, two for the remodeled and upgraded shuttle and one for the Titan II. Last year, the United States launched 12 spacecraft; the Soviets launched 94. We have about 16,000 people in the space launch business, mostly contractors. The Soviets have 111,000, or a ratio of roughly 7 to 1. They have a war readiness stockpile of boosters and satellites that are ready to launch. For example, if we look back to April to June of 1982, during the Falkland war when the Soviets saw an opportunity to look at Great Britain, a NATO ally, and how they fight, they launched in a period of 69 days 29 spacecraft. What is important is their ability to quickly jump into space with a large number of warfighting spacecraft. The Soviets have the United States outnumbered 2 to 1 in launch infrastructure, about 36 to 1 in launch boosters, and over 25 to 1 in launch responsiveness. I mentioned one benchmark, the Falkland war. The average time it takes us to put a spacecraft into orbit and turn that over to the operator is roughly 180 days. Half of that time is used for preparing the booster and the payload on the ground; the remainder of the time is used for turning the satellite on and getting it ready for operational use in space. While our response time is measured in weeks and months, theirs is measured in hours and days so their responsiveness could be a factor of as much as 100 to 1 to ours. The former Secretary of the Air Force visited Tyuratam and asked the Soviets how they were able to launch so many spacecraft. One of the answers they gave is they prepared two at any given time, wheeled them out to the pad, and then launched the one of their choice. We don't have that capability even if we wanted to do that because all our launch facilities are limited to one booster and one spacecraft at a time. Having said that and pointed out how much more robust and responsive the Soviets are, it is essential to also note that our spacecraft are more reliable, finer grained, and longer lived. ANTI-SATELLITE CAPABILITY If it weren't for the fact that the Soviets not only have one form of anti-satellite weapon, but at least four, it wouldn't matter that they have this great robustness. Not only do they have an operational coorbital antisatellite weapon, they also have two highpower lasers at Sary Shagan, which have been operational for a number of years In addition, the USSR has an impressive ECM capability in their ASAT arsenal. When I asked the CIA how effective the Soviets were, they published a study showing that the When you consider their ability to launch quickly and the fact that they have anti-satellite weapons to destroy our systems, it is clear that we are depending on Soviet strategic philanthropy to be allowed to operate our satellites in a period of tension or conflict. This Nation needs an anti-satellite weapon to deter the Soviets from using theirs against our systems and in order to sweep the skies clear of Soviet satellites that threaten our forces. For example, their electronic intelligence ocean reconnaissance satellites, radar ocean reconnaissance satellites, and imagery satellites. Earlier, I mentioned the Falkland war. The Soviets aren't launching more frequently. Their spacecraft are just getting better. MISSILE WARNING I will now turn to missile warning, which is perhaps the most important responsibility of the unified United States Pace Command. The Defense Support Program is working well. -. We have also improved system reliability with human intervention so that the information flowing to my mountain headquarters is reviewed by the operators at the receiver sites in Australia and veri fied by them as valid, then manually released to the Cheyenne Mountain Headquarters as well as other forward users. As soon as the missile launch data is received, Cheyenne Mountain operators verify that what is being seen is what is being sent. I am confident that the system is reliable and that should the Soviets launch, it will be detected and we will be able to pass that information to the National Command Authorities very rapidly. We looked at incidents of reporting and the time from the instant of missile launch until a launch event was displayed in my headquarters Missile launch information comes quickly and reliably. To give you an idea of how often the Integrated Tactical Warning and Assessment system is exercised, in the last two years, the Soviets, the U.S. and other nations launched over and spacecraft, The Soviets represent some some missiles of all missile launches and of all satellite launches, which illustrates the robustness of their satellite and missile booster production base. As the result of the large number of space and missile launches conducted by the Soviets, our Defense Support program and the people that operate that system experience an average of The DSP system is well exercised. I talked to you, sir, privately about the need to build spacecraft that directly support the warfighters. The Defense Acquisition Board approved Milestone O for the Air Force and the Navy to proceed with a concept exploration of space-based surveillance system. We looked at what there is to monitor in terms of aircraft and ships and found $411 billion worth of Soviet, Warsaw Pact and other potential adversaries that such a system could track from origin. We could track, for example, from Colombia to any point in the United States an aircraft originated from there and pass that track information to the appropriate authority for drug interdiction. The mission of detecting and tracking airborne illegal drug traffickers has been assigned to my NORAD headquarters. We are excited about the ability of space systems to contribute significantly to that important mission. What we do well in space is navigation, communication, surveillance, and we need to improve the surveillance systems that feed directly to our warfighters. Another potential concept is an optical system to provide information on whether ships were in harbor, or aircraft on the airfield, tanks in garrison or deployed. I have been in the Air Force now for 37 years, started out as enlisted. I can tell you and members of your committee that we have today the finest young men and women, better educated, more aware, more committed, confident that they are serving a noble purpose, and committed to do it right. They are proud of what they are doing. Unfortunately, I constantly see their compensation eroding in terms of dollars and cents as compared to their comparable occupations on the outside, but also in terms of total compensation. In the past it was appropriate to charge just a small sum for recreational activities, to repair cars in the hobby shop, to take care of children in the child care center, to be able to recreate in swimming pools, bowling alleys, et cetera. These charges have increased as much as a thousand percent. In some cases where fees didn't exist, it now costs $2.00 an hour to work in a wood hobby shop, for example. Our people have not been compensated for that increase in fees. They are charged to use facilities that used to be provided for them. I believe that we are sending the wrong message to our young people and that message is that we don't care about them or we don't really believe their services are necessary because we are not providing compensation for them. That completes my remarks. I would be happy to respond to your questions. [The biographical sketch and statement of General Piotrowski follow:] Biography MCMXLVII United States Air Force Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20330 GENERAL JOHN L. PIOTROWSKI General John L. Piotrowski is commander in chief of the General Piotrowski was born Feb. 17, 1934, in Detroit and graduated from Henry Ford Trade School, Dearborn, Mich., in 1951. He attended Arizona State University and Florida State University, and graduated from the University of Nebraska at Omaha in 1965 with a bachelor of science degree. He did postgraduate work at the University of Southern California and Auburn (Ala.) University, and attended the program for management development at Harvard University. The general completed Squadron Officer School in 1956, Air Command and Staff College in 1965, Armed Forces Staff College in 1968 and the Royal Air Force College of Air Warfare, Royal Air Force Station Manby, England, in 1971. He enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in September 1952. After basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, he was assigned to Keesler Air Force Base, Miss., as a student in basic electronics and ground radar. In July 1953 General Piotrowski transferred to Harlingen Air Force Base, Texas, for navigator and observer training in the aviation cadet program. After graduating as a distinguished graduate, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force in August 1954. He then returned to Keesler Air Force Base for advanced training in electronic countermeasures. In January 1955 he received the electronic warfare rating and was assigned to the 67th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing in South Korea and Japan as an electronic warfare officer and RB-26 navigator. The general returned to the United States in May 1957 for pilot training at Marana Air Base, Ariz.; Bainbridge Air Base, Ga.; and Bryan Air Force Base, Texas. He then attended F-86F advanced gunnery training at Williams Air Force Base, Ariz. After graduation he was assigned as armament and electronics maintenance officer at Williams and, later, at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. In May 1961 he moved to Eglin Air Force Auxiliary Field 9, Fla., and joined the initial cadre of Project Jungle Jim, which became the 1st Air Commando Wing. While assigned to Eglin, he served in Southeast Asia, from November 1961 to May 1963, as a munitions maintenance officer, and T-28 and B-26 combat aircrew member. In August 1965 General Piotrowski joined the Air Force Fighter Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., and served as an F-4C instructor pilot, chief of academics, an academic instructor and project officer for the Air Force operational test and evaluation of the Walleye missile program. Upon completion of testing in the United States, he introduced the Walleye into combat with the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing in Southeast Asia. After graduation from the Armed Forces Staff College in August 1968, he was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., as an action officer under the deputy director of plans for force development. From December 1970 to July 1971 he attended the Royal Air Force College of Air Warfare. He was then assigned to Bitburg Air Base, West Germany, as assistant and, subsequently, deputy commander for operations, 36th Tactical Fighter Wing. In January 1972 he took command of the 40th Tactical Group, Aviano Air Base, Italy. In April 1974 General Piotrowski became chief of the Air Force Six-Man Group, located at Maxwell Air Force Base, directly responsible to the chief of staff. He became vice commander of Keesler Technical Training Center, Keesler Air Force Base, in March 1975. He took command of the reactivated 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., in July 1976 and was instrumental in establishing the E-3A Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft as an operational Air Force weapon system. General Piotrowski was named deputy commander for air defense, Tactical Air Command, Peterson Air Force Base, in September 1979. In April 1981 he became Tactical Air Command's deputy chief of staff for operations at Langley Air Force Base, Va., and in August 1982 was assigned as the command's vice commander. He served as commander of 9th Air Force, Shaw Air Force Base, S.C., from October 1982 to July 1985, when he became vice chief of staff of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. He assumed his present command in February 1987. The general is a command pilot with more than 5,000 flying hours, including 100 combat missions and 210 combat flying hours. His military decorations and awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Air Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, Presidential Unit Citation and Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with three oak leaf clusters. He received the Eugene M. Zuckert Management Award for 1979. He was promoted to general Aug. 1, 1985, with same date of rank. General Piotrowski is married to the former Sheila Dee Fredrickson of Racine, Wis. They have one daughter, Denise Lynn, and two sons, Scott Lee and Jon Dee. -30 |