SECRET
CHIEF OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MINUTE SHEET
FILE: S964-106-4 TD9338 (COR)
16 Dec 59
Min (3)
VCAS
Gap Filler Program
The 45 gap fillers in the Pinetree chain presently included in the CADIN program were sited on the basis of a low level coverage down to 2000 feet. This was, therefore, the coverage involved when we agreed to the 45 gap fillers. You will recall also that CTel and COR jointly recommended against the provision of any gap fillers on the basis that the threat was not sufficient to warrant this program. In the end the CAS decided that six gap fillers would constitute the Canadian responsibility.
Since the Pillow survey, CTel and COR staffs have reviewed the coverage provided and have concluded that 2000 ft coverage could be provided by 31 rather than by 45 gap fillers in the Pinetree area. This change from the Pillow survey conclusions has been brought about largely by improvements in performance.
The statement in para 2 of Min (1) regarding approval for planning purposes of NADO 59-69 is true. It should be noted, however, that the requirement for low level coverage as set forth in both NADOP documents is for coverage to 2000 ft rather than 1000 ft over mountainous terrain. The Chiefs of Staff have not explicitly approved the NORAD objective plan 59-63 and have not yet considered NADOP 61-65. The first objectives plan was merely noted. On the other hand, since the operational requirements criteria were not explicitly objected to, it might be taken that there was implicit agreement with them. This nevertheless does not signify agreement with a gap filler program based on these criteria. To sum up, so far as operational requirements are concerned, the RCAF has only agreed implicitly to a 2000 ft coverage by agreeing to participate in the program for 45 gap fillers in Pinetree. This incidentally was agreement for Pinetree only and not for the whole air defence system in Canada. The RCAF has not explicitly agreed to the present NORAD criterion of 500 ft.
The immediate problem arises because it will be necessary to re-site some of the 45 gap fillers for reasons of interference or unacceptable cost. When re-siting gap fillers some criterion needs to be used in determining the new location. The proposal of AMTS is that the criterion be the requirement for 500 ft coverage. Under the circumstances outlined above this is hardly acceptable. On the other hand, the use of a 200 ft criterion may not now be acceptable to the USAF.
A meeting was held with COps, CPlansI and CTel to discuss the problem and attempt to arrive at a course of action. In our discussion it was clear that we still hold the same view on the operational requirement, namely that the low level threat does not warrant any increase in our scale of effort as far as gap fillers are concerned. We are, however, committed to the program of 45 gap fillers in Pinetree. The view of COps was that our high altitude coverage is not yet satisfactory with the FPS20 and that this area needs attention before we devote any effort to gap fillers. DCEO indicated that FPS20 radars were not giving reliable coverage above 48000 or 49000 ft whereas the capability of the equipment is intended to be 60,000 ft (this problem will be examined separately.)
On the basis of all the factors involved it appears that our best course of action is:
The above policy, if approved, leaves something to be desired as it is not firmly based on operational requirements. It will, therefore, be more difficult to implement so far as AMTS staffs are concerned. It is believed, however, that it provides the best guidance possible under the circumstances.
(WW Bean) A/C
COR
2-2843