BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL

rt To The CongressOF THE UNITED STATES

Status Of The Air Force'sMissile X Program

The Air Force is developing a new, highlyaccurate, mobile intercontinental ball!sti.: mis­sile system, the Missile X system. It i::i expect­ed to have increased chances of survival u\lerthe silo-based Minuteman system.

The budget for fiscal year 1979 did not in­clude any funds for fu!l-scale development ofMissile X. This deferral should permit Defenseto resolve the problems outlined in this re­port.

PSAD-78-35

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATESWASHINGTON, D.C. 2OSC8

8-163058

To the Presioent of the Senate and theSpeaker of the House of Representatives

ThlS report presents our views on the major issuesof the MX Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Program. Adraft of this report was reviewed by aqency officials as­sociated with the pr" lram and their comments are incorporateoas appropriate.

,or the past several years we have annually reportedto the Congress on the status of selected major weaponssystems. This report is one of a series of reports thatwe are furnishing this ye~r to the Congress for its use inreviewing fiscal year 1~,9 requests for funds.

We made our review pursuant to the Budget and Account­ing Act. 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accountinq and Audit­ing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).

We are sending copies of this report to the ~cting

Director, Office ot Management and Rudqet, and tl.e Secre­tarv of Defense.

i%:ot,\, ~"of the United States

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'SREPORT TO THE CONGRESS

DIG EST- - - -

STATUS or THE AIR rORCE MXINTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTICMISSILE PROGRAM

The Missile X (MX) system is an advanced. highlyRccurate. mobile intercontinental ballisticmissile system the Air rorce is starting todevelop. Its increased survivability. as com­pareo to the fixed-in-place Minuteman s~stem.

is intended to be gained by having a nu~ber ofpossible missile launch points. In this way,an enemy would be unable to identify the exactlocation of the missile before launch. Comparedto Minuteman III, Missile X is also intended tobe more accurat~ and capable of delivering alarger number of nuclear warheads.

The Air Force is cons ide. l..'! bur ied trench andshelter basing concepts ~or deployme~t of theMX.

The buried trench concept consists of shallow­buried concrete tubes. The missile, on a trans­porter, with launch and control equipment, israndomly moved within the tube. This preventslearning the location of missiles by acoustic,optic, thp.rmal, magnetic, or electronic sensors.The enemy must attack the entire trench to havea high confidence of destroying the missile.The trench structure protects the missile andequipment from external pressure and other ef­fects of a nuclear weapon detonation. Blastplugs located on either side of the missileprovide protection from internal pressurecaused by a nuclear detonation breaking thetube. For firing, the missile is elevated inits canister through the tube and the earthcover.

The shelter concept is based on moving a mis­sile. with launch and control equipment. be­tween a number of hardened shelters. Anenemy must successfully attack all shelterF tobe sure that the one containing the missile isdestroyed. The shelter provides protectionagainst air blest and radiation, and the launch

Tear Shoet. Upon removal, the reportcover date should be noted hereon. i PSAD-78-35

equipment and canister provide protectionfrom electromagnetic pulse and ground shock.The missile may ~e moved outside the shelterand elev~ted to a vertical position forlaunch, or it may be designed to breakthrough the roof, as in the trench concept.

The MX prcgram is in the validation phaseof advanced development. During thisphase the Air Force is proving missiletechnology and mobile basing concepts toreduce technical risks and cost uncertain­ties. At the conclusion of the currentphase, the Air Force is expected to havedefined a baseline MX system for full­scal~ development.

P,e current status of the validation activityfor full-scale development of the MX systemfollows.

--All program estimates are tentative atthe present time. Before meaningful eS­timates can be prepared, the quantityof missiles must be determined, the base­line missile defined, and the basing modeselected. (S"" p. 5.)

--The Air Force developed MX program costestimates for planning purposes. Oneplanning estimate showeu a cost of about$28 billion for a 200-missile force.(Seep. 5.)

--Advanced development of the MX system wasestimated to cost $316 million. (Seep. 4.)

--The MX schedule plan shows full-scaledevelopment beginning in November 1978 andproduction in June 1983. Funding, however,was not included in the fiscal year 1979budget for full-scale development of MX.(See p. 6.)

--Performance thresholds have been estab­lished, but MX performance specificationswill not be established until full-scaledevelopment approval. (See p. 6.)

ii

Tear Shut

--Missile basing has been narrowed to twogeneric concepts--buried trenches andshelters. (See p. 1.)

--The MX program office currently is inves­tigating 11 technical or cost risk areasdefined in the MX Decision CoordinatingPaper. (See p. 7.)

--Air Force officials are generally satis­fied with results in missile risk areas.However, for one area--directional rocketmotor nozzle technology--test resultshave not been totally successful. Al­though two experimental nozzles failedduring testing, program officials ex­pressed confidence that technical riskfor the directional nozzle area has beenreduced. Tests conducted were more severethan tests planned for the MX nozzles.(See p. 7.)

--The Air Force plans to construct twotrenches to evaluate trench basing costs,production rate and schedule estimating,and construction technology. (See p. 11.)

--Final data from several risk efforts willnot be availa~le until October 1978, andcomplete data on tunnel construction notuntil spring 1979. However the Air Forceexpects the necessary data ~~ support full­scale development in advance of these dates.(See pp. lJ and 12.)

The Air Force MX program office has been ac­tive in efforts to reduce technical and costrisk for the MX program. Most work to dateshowed positive results.

Problems identified during validation, butmainly delays in having complete data neededto define the most cost-effective system tomeet MX operational requirements, make de­ferring full-scale development beyond Novem­ber 1978 advisable.

A draft of this report was reviewed by programofficials. Their comments were incorporatedas appropriate.

iii

DIGEST

CHAPTER

1

2

3

GAO

ICBM

MX

Con ten t s

INTRODUCTIONMX develooment proaram historYMX program managementScope of review

STATUS OF THE MX PROGRAMMX cost estimateMX schedule statusMX performance status

STATUS OF MX ADVANCED DEVELOPMENTMX pal idationConclusions

ABBREVIATIONS

General Accounting Office

intercontinental ballistic missile

Missile X

Paqe

i

1233

44~

6

77

13

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE BOEING COMPANYSHEL TER CO (;fDT

BURIED TRENCH CONCEPT

CHAPTF.R I

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. ~trateqlc nuclear forces are embodied in BL~l~rl of straleylC systems; name Iv land-base~ intercontinen­till hall istic missiles (ICBMs), mann eo hambers aoo cruise~is,iles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, callenth0 TRIAD system. Each element of the TRIAD force provinesoetprrence. ICBM comtines accuracy, flexibility, earlytime-on-tarqet, a hiqh alert ra e, positive command and can­tr01, and economy of op2ra~ions. Because of these charac~er­

lstic5, IC8~5 can be applied across the entire taL get spe~­

trum orn cnnctltute the best capability against targetsresistant- t l nucle.:r attack.

The Air For~e sees a need to modernize the ICRM forceill terms of imprl"'lved survivability and effectiveness. Theesser,ce of survivability rests on the ability to absorb a'"lrst ~trike and retaliate with the appropriate force. ICB~s

lr. siltS are cnnsidered survivable today, but they will he­co~e vulnerable as the accuracy of the enemy's ballisticmissiles improve and increased numbers are deployed. TheAir Force propos~s multiole aimooint baSIng to maintain hiqhmissile survivability aqainst increased threats by makinqIt more difficult for the enemy to inentify the exact mis­Sile location before ~ttack and bv makinq the missile resis­tant enough to survive conceivable attacks.

At the same time, the Air Force is expanding the techno­logy for developing an improved ICBM--one capable of carry­ing a larqer payload.

Missile X (MX) is perceiveo as an increased throwweiqht,survIvable, a~d highly accurate ballistic missile with amultiple indeoendent retargetable reentry ~ehicle capahility.The Air Force is considering buried trench and shelter bas­ing concepts for missile deployment. 80th conc~ots involveproliferation of hardened aimpoints through concealen move­ment uf a missile to anyone of a number of oossi~le loca­tions.

The huried trench concept consists of shal1ow-~urien

concrete tubes. The missile, on its transporter with launc~

ann control eauipment, is randomly moved within tpe tuhp.This prevents unauthorized location of most missiles hvacoustic, optic, thermal, maqnetic, or electronic sensors.The enemy must nttack the entire trench to have a hiah con­fidence of destroying the missile. The trench 5tructure

1

protects the missile and equipment from external oressure andother effects of a nuclear weapon detonation. Blast plugslocated on either side of the missile provide protectionfrom internal pressure caused by a nuclear detonation break­ing the tube. For firing, the missile is elevated in itscanister through the tube and the earth cover. The missileis launched at about 4S-degree angle.

The shelter concept is based on moving a missile, withlaunch and control equipment, between a number of hardenedshelters. An enemy must successfully attack all sheltersto assure that the one containing the missile is destroyed.The shelter provides protection against air blast and radia­tion, and the launch equipment and canister provide protec­tion from electromagnetic pulse and ground shock. The mis­sile may be moved outside the ohelter and elevated to avertical position for launch, or it may be desianed to breakthrough the roof, as in the trench concept.

MX DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM HISTORY

The advanced development program for the ~x missilewas started in 1974. Si~ce then, ooerational capabilityrequirements have not changed. However, missile basing hasundergone several changes. The Air Force initially plannedto deploy the first missiles in existing Minutemen silos;later missile deployment was to use one of several optionalmobile basing modes. Toward this end, the feasibility oflaunching an ICBM from an aircraft was demonstrated inOctober 1974. Later, equal emphasis was directed towarddefining ground mobile and silo-based concepts. However,the Congress stopped funding the silo-based concept.

When MX was approved for advanced development, theAir Force planned to start full-scale development in fiscalyear 1978. Subsequently, when the validation phase wasapproved in 1976, full-scale development was planned forSeptember 1977. With the advent of a new administration,the program was restructured in April 1977 to accommodatebeginning full-scale development in fiscal year 1979.

At the present time advanced development of the mis­sile and cf the trench and shelter options are beinq con­tinued.

2

MX PR0GRAM MANAGEMENT

The Deputy for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles,Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO), Norton AirForce Base, California, is responsible for managinq the MXprogram. The program office integrates i~dustry efforts tosupport the MX development proqram.

The program office has contracted with the Defense andSpace Systems Group of the TRW Corporation for s~stems en­gineering and technical direction of the validation andsystem definition support. Program support involves (1)design, improvement, and overall technical advances in weaponsystem reliability and effectivity and (2) preparation ofpreliminary specifications and contract work statements.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

This is our first review of the MX program's status; werevIewed the program as of December 31, 1977. The primaryobjective of this review was to determine the cost,' schedule,and performance status of the missile development and mobil~

basing program elements, ~specially the extent to whichtechnical risks and cost uncertainties were being assessedduring the validation phase. We review<>d contract work state­m<>nts, program management and planning documents. technicalreports from associate contractors, test reports, programcost estimates, milestone schedules, and held :~scussions

with program officials.

3

CHAPTER 2

STATUS OF THE MX PROGRAM

The MX program is in the advanced development phase ofthe aCQuisition cycle. Missil~ technology and mobile basingconcepts are being val idated to ,·educe techriical risks andcost uncertainties in pr~paration for an October 1978 deci­sion on full-scale development.

Delays in cost validation efforts may make deferringthe Jecision advisable. In addition, nozzle assembly failure~

occurred during rocket propulsion tests. Program officialsexpres~ej the view that work in the nozzle technology areahas reduced technical risk. (See ch. 3.)

Firm cost estima~~~, schedule milestones, and performancegvals were not established at the time of our review; however,program officials provided us with planning data as a tenta­tive program baseline. Firm cost, schedule, and performancebaseline estimates will be developed by the time a full-scaledevelopment decision is made. The estimates will be basedin large part on the results of th~ validation phase.

MX COST ESTIMATE

The Air Force estimated that advanced development willcost about $316.3 million. A breakdown of estimated advanceddevelopment cost by functional area and fiscal year is asfollows:

1~,~-.• ~£!!" t _ (!!: i I !! '?!:!H_ ~ ___ "______________

~'~nc:t lon ... l" Tot ... 1

;.!.~<;J 1917" ~~?Z l~?~ 1212

." mOlllle baslI,Q S ,., , - s - s - S 7.'

PropulSIon 32. J '-' \ 2.9 .., 55.'5

Per forl'!'''"l:l' '"d 6.9~oftWIHE' ,.. l.O 2. R • J

Gllldllnct> ,"d co·'.rol 43.8 21.8 2\' .0 .. \ 101. 1

CO~llIand control/colll-'IIunIC1Hlon5. Il hy.!i1-", $l'C.H lty. '"d 10. Sqrol,1nd po,",er ., 2• ., 7,' .7

MISSile transoort ,,'" 23.11launch v~hu'les . 7 ,. ) 13. 6 .,CaniSter '" I. ) 1.1 .. ,.,aUt let Hoeneh '.7 11>.0 20.7Shelt~r closure '.2 2.7 7.'Sit 11c,/she I ter Ides 1<111 2. , '-' ••• •• 12. "tnv.· .,lnlllent 1.7 '.' ,. I

Vulnerilbillty "dh4rdne!~ • 1 ,.. ••• I.' 13. ]

SjlStClIl cr., 'l'If!er lllQ;)2. 1 4. l H.I;

lfl/lll'liil;lt'xent supoort ., .. ,;I••nt:~· n·!llcl. - - __l;.~ 1.'; __ ~.:2. -_. ._..

Tot.!l SE.:~ S~!.:Q SU!:.~ S!.Q.:B Sn~;.~

4

ACquisition cost

Estimates for the acquisition coat of the MX system arevery tentative. The nUlllber of missiles to be deployed hasnot been established, and ~he 1II0bile basing mode with as­sociated transport and la~nch equipaent has not been selected.Further, .i.sile ~onfiguration has not been defined, includ­ing all aspects of the propulsion, guidance and control, andreentry vehicle sUbsyst!!ms. In addition, land requirementsand environaental issues could affect program cost estimates.

For planning purposes, the Air Force prepared cost es­tilllates based on different missile quantities and basingassu.ptions. The following i8 a planning estimate basedon deploying 200 missiles, each in a l2-mile trench on pUb­lic dOllain land withdrawn for Defense use.

MX Ac!~isition Planning Cost Estimate

1976dollars

Then-yeardollars

(millions)

DevelopaentProcurementMilitary construction

Total

$ 4,963.07,296.63,831,:.!

$16,090.7

$ 7,430.813,571.37,258.0

$28,260.1

Based on the above, the program unit cost would beabout $80 million per missile in 1976 dollars or $141.3 mil­lion in then-year dollar~.

MX SCHEDULE STATUS-The Air Force has developed the following tentative

schedule milestones leading to production of the MX system.

5

Milestones

Missile:Contract awards--full-scale develo?mentSystem design reviewPreliminary design reviewCritical design revi~w

First flight testFirst flight test with vehicleProduction release

Multiple airupDi~t basing:Contract awards for ground vehilces--

full-scale developmentSystem design reviewPreliminary design reviewCritical design reviewFirst multiple aimpoint fligot testProduction release

Facilities:Final environment statement for support

of full-scale development decisionSubmittal of initial military construc­

tion proposaltinal environmental statement for site

selectionSelection of deployment areaFinal environmental statement for mis­

sile deploymentCommencement of construction

Currentestimate

(10/31/77)

11/782/80

11/801/823/824/836/83

7/792/802/811/824/836/83

7/78

4/79

11/7912/79

1/826/83

A recent decision by the Executive Department will delaythe above schedule. Funding for MX full-scale developmentwas not requested in the fiscal year 1979 budget. The Se­cret~ry of D~fense said the basing concepts had not beensufflciently determined in terms of cost, survivability, orgeographic location. He indicated that if these issues areresolved in time to allow a full-scale development decisionin early fiscal year 1979, then any additional funding neededwould be requested.

MX PERFORMANCE STATUS

Performance thresholds for accuracy, range, and throw­weiqht are included in MX planning documents, but performancespecifications have not been established. Performance speci­fications at the system and subsystem level will be preparedduring the remainder c~ the validation phase as a basis fordetail design and development during the full-scale develop­ment phase.

6

CHAPTER 3

STATUS OF MX ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT

The Air Force has two major tasks to perform duringadvanced development of the MX. First. it must valiaatetechnical concepts and related cost estimates (this effortis referred to as validation). Secon~. based on the resultsof the validation effort, the Air Force must define the MXsystem for full-scale development. system definition shouldprovide the most cost-effective life cycle cost configurationof missile and basing modes that supports operational re­quirement~.

The major effort to date for MX advanced development hasbeen in validation.

MX VALIDATION

The validation phase for the MX program includes a con­tinuation of validation of key missile technology and basingconcepts. The MX Decision Coordinating Paper identified 11areas to be examined during the validation phase in order toreduce technical risk and cost uncertainties. Missile techno­logy efforts focus on the propulsion, guidance and control.and reentry vehicle systems. The subsystems being validatedand tested for multiple aimpoint basing include the buriedtrench and shelter closure concepts.

The status of the key areas are as follows.

Missile technology

First stage movable nozzle

The Air Force is evaluating a movable nozzle to be usedon the first stage rocket motor. The movable nozzle isneeded to achieve large and rapid changes in the missile'svelocity and direction. This technology is important toachieving maximum payload and range for nonvertical missilelaunches contemplated with the buried trench basing mode andalso to minmizing propellant energy for proper missile tra­jectory.

A contract was awarded in May 1974 for the design andtest of the directional nozzle concept. Two of three sched­uled tests were completed in December 1976 and September1977.

7

In the first test carbon phenolic and two-dimensionalcarbon/carbon material eroded from the side of the nozzleinlet when the nozzle was vectored about 14 degrees (themaximum deflection for air-launched application, which hassince been eliminated) into the gas flow stream. The failureoccurred after about 10 seconds of a 60-second test firing.Shortly thereafter other portions of the nozzle failed asa result of the initial material failure. Analysis of thetest results showed that the movable nozzle concept per­formed as predicted. However, the Program Office recommendedreducing the vector angle commensurate with the intended ap­plication, increasing the thickness of the backside insula­tio~ material, and using an advanced integral throat en­trance section made of carbon/carbon material for futuretests.

The second test resulted in a failure of the exitcone. Test result analysis indicated that the exit conebroke away from the nozzle assembly during an 8-degree vectorangle after approximately 35 seconds of the scheduled 60­second test, causing other portions of the nozzle assemblyto fail. Program officials said that the integral throatentrance section and backside insulation would hav~ satis­factorily completed the test had the exit cone not failed.

A third test scheduled for April 1978 has been c~ncelled

because program officials considered all primary objecti,esof the program to be successfully completed. The scheduledtest was to test a carbon/carbon exit cone. Program officialssa;~ that they did not consider the development mandatorybecause of proven ablative 1/ exit cone technology.

A competitive nozzle design contract was awarded to asecond contractor in August 1977; a test of this nozzle de­sign is scheduled for June 1978. The Air Force also plansto award a development contract in March 1978 for advancedca,bon/carbon materials for fabricating noz~les.

According to Air Force officials, knowledge gained inthe two advanced development tests has better defined an­ticipated operating conditions and has helped in selectingreliable approaches for full-scale development. Consequently,the overall risk in the nozzle area was reduced.

l/Ablative--a material that vaporizes or evaporates to dis­- sipate heat.

8

Second stage motor

The Air Force is evaluating rocket motor design areas-­including high-energy propellant, high-strength case material,a lightweight nozzle, the thrust vector control, and an ex­tendable nozzle exit cone for the second stage motor. Acontract for the motor development program was awarded inMay 1914.

Evaluation tests conducted in December 1976 verifiedperformance requirements for the propellant.

Burst tests of two motor cases conducted in August andSeptember 1977 resulted in case bursts at lower stress limitsthan the advanced develo~ment goal. Program officials statedthat the lower stress limit burst results still provide in­creased case strength over previous designs and exceed thegoals established for the full-scale development program.

A full-scale second stage motor (including the nozzleand thrust vector control) was successfully test fired inJa~uary 1977.

The extendable cone provides for higher energy effi­ciency and greater thrust. The operational capability andthe structural integrity of the extendable cone was demon­strated during testE conducted in June 1976 and December1976.

Third s~age motor

The Air Force is evaluatinq designs for high oerformancepropellants, a low length-diameter motor case, and an earlymotor thrust termination capability for the third stagemotor. A contract for a demonstration program was awardedin September 1974.

The processing and mechanical properties for the pro­pellant are satisfactory, and the performance characteristicsfor the propellant have been evaluated at sea level andsimulated altitude conditions.

The demonstration of the motor case design and earlythrust termination capability was successful. A full-scaletest of a third stage demonstration test motor in August1977 indicated that the demonstration program objectiveswere meet. However, a nozzle failure occurred, resulting

9

in manual thrust termination. An evaluation of the mal­function disclosed a structural failure of the throat re­tainer.

The Air Force awarded two contracts in November 1977for development of expandable exit cone technology for useon the third stage and possibly the second stage motor.The contracts are for low-cost techniques; three test fir­ings are planned under each contract, the first of which isscheduled for October 1978.

Inertial measurement unit

The development of the Advanced Inertial Reference Sphereinertial measurement unit is critical to the accuracy of theMX system. Development includes complete radiation harden­ing; improvements in reliability, maintainability, and per­formance; and enhanced producibility.

A contract was awarded in May 1975 for the design,fabrication, system integration, and testing of the AdvancedInertial Reference Sphere. Four units are scheduled fordelivery between January 1978 and April 1979, after comple­tion of acceptance and quality configuration testing. Furtherverification testing will be performed for system definitionand full-scale development. Verification testing for thefirst three units is scheduled for completion in July 1978.Complete program testing (including studies and evaluation)is scheduled for completion in April 1979.

A design review of the Advanced Inertial ReferenceSphere was held in December 1977. The results showed thatprogram objectives wer~ being achieved. Three systems hadbeen assembled at the time, and technical risks were suffi­ciently reduced to warrant a recommendation to proceed intofull-scale development.

Reentry vehicle nosetips

The Air Force is evaluating the use of carbon/carbonmaterial to reduce reentry vehicle flight errors to acceptablelevels.

The development program included flight tests with car­bon/carbon nosetips on a Minuteman missile. Test results.showed a significant increase in accuracy when compared with

10

prior flight tests using carbon phenolic nosetips. In ad­dition, two flight tests of reentry vehicles under develop­ment for the Minuteman missile indicated that the carbonicarbon nosetips will support required loads and enhance ac­curacy.

Additional flight tests are scheduled for 1978.

Potential use of the Global Positioning System

The Air Force objective of improving the accuracy of theMX system includes consideration of the potential use of theGlobal Positioning System, a satellite-based radio navigationsystem currently under development. Program officials statedthat the Global positioning System is not required for anoperationally deployed MX system, but that some potentialexists for its use during MX flight tests.

The Navy plans to use the Global Positioning System forflight testing in its Trident accuracy improvement proqram.

Basing modes

Demonstration 2f buried trench concept

The Air Force proposes to construct two undergroundtunnels to verify cost and time estimates, and constructiontechnOlogy for the buried trench concept. The tunnels willbe full size (having an inside diameter of 13 feet) and willbe buried approximately 5 feet below ground level. A con­struction contract was awarded in March 1977 to provideinformation on both a precast and a cast-in-place method.

For the precast method, a 1,500-foot trench will beconstructed from 30-foot sections transported to the trenchsite. This trench will also be used to demonstrate mechanismsfor breaking through the roof of the trench for a missilelaunch. The trench is expected to be constructed durinqMarch and April 1978.

For the cast-in-place method, a 20,OOO-foot trench(comprised of two lO,OOO-foot sections) will be constructed.Casting machines with the concrete poured in continuousprocess will be used. One lO,OOO-foot section will be con­structed using existing construction equipment, whereasspecially designed equipment will be used on the second sec­tion. Construction is scheduled for completion in lateDecember 1978. .

11

-

Program officials stated that the information obtainedfrom the construction demonstration project would not becompletely evaluated until February 1979. However, AirForce officials believe that sufficient evaluation will beavailable for a basing decision by the ~nd of calendaryear 1978.

Roof breakout mechanism

The Air Force is evaluating varioils mechanisms forbreaking the launch equipment and missile through the roofof a buried trench for missile launch. ~wards were made totwo contractors in December 1976 for alternative designs andfor fabrication of prototypes.

Both contractors will demonstrate units in a buriedtrench to be constructed for demonstration at Luke AirForce Base in Arizona. The contractors will provide reportson the results of tests scheduled for completion in Julyand August 1978.

Shelter closure

The Air Force is evaluating a closure assembly forthe shelter. The closure assembly must be capable of pro­viding ingress/egress for the missile launch vehicle,transporter, and launch control center. A contract wasawarded in December 1976 for the design and fabricationof test models of the closure assembly.

The contractor completed the closure design and isfabricating models--one of which will be tested by theAir Force Weapons Laboratory in April 1978. other testsare scheduled for completion in September 1978.

Protection of the missile and launcher

The Air Force and the Defense Nuclear Agency are con­ducting test programs to assess the nuclear hardness andsurvivability of the shelter and buried trench concepts.The tests will provide data for facilities design and as­sist in resolving technical and cost issues. The testswere started in October 1976 and are scheduled to be com­pleted in October 1978.

Five of seven tests on subscale shelters and trencheshave been completed. The tests are to determine structuralloads and responses to simulated nuclear blast and shock

12

I•~

-

effects. Eight of 10 tests to determine the cumulative ef­fects of ground shock on trenches from single and multiplehigh explosive detonations have also been completed. Addi­tional MX-related tests include underground experimentsto determine blast shock physics and the effects of elec­tromagnetic pulse from nuclear weapons detonation.

Preliminary analysis of completed tests indicate thatuseful information is being obtained for the two mobilebasing concepts. Program officials stated that the testswill be useful in making future decisions on thp mobilebasing concepts.

Environmental impact statements

The Air Force is preparing statements assessing theenvironmental consequences at key decision points for theMX system. Environmental statements have been, or willbe prepared for (1) a buried trench construction and vali­dation test project, (2) the decision for approval for full­scale development, (3) site selection, including a reguestfor funding of military construction, and (4) deployment,including award of production and construction contracts.A contract was awarded in January 1977 for the preparationof the environmental statements.

A draft environmental impact statement fo< the buriedtrench test project was released to the public and govern­ment agencies in August 1977; the final rep(;rt was releasedin January 1978.

The draft environmental statement to support the deci­sion for full-scale development is being prepared. Thefinal statement is expected to be released in October 1978 •

Tt~ environmental statements for site selection anddeploym"nt are scheduled for release in September 1979 andJanuary 1982, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete data may not be available to support an October1978 MX full-scale development decision review. When conceptvalidation was approved in 1976, the Air Force was taskedto reduce the magnitude and uncertainty of cost for criti­cal MX subsystems and to demonstrate technical feasibility.For several areas specified for examination, informationin the form of final contractor reports will not be available

13

,.

until October 1978. In at least one major area (cost of con­structing the buried trench) information will not be completeuntil well after October. The results of these efforts mustbe evaluated to propose the most cost effective design tomeet operational requirements.

The Air Force feels that the quantity and quality oftechnical and cost data acquired during the MX advanceddevelopment program will be sufficient to support a full­scale development decision at the end of calendar year 1978.

Considering the cost magnitude and technical risks in­volved in the MX program, weoelieve that delaying full­scale development"of the MX program is prudent and thatscheduling the full-scale development decision should becontingent on the availability of accurate and complete re­sults of advanced development efforts.

(951396)

14