Men and Missiles

LT.-COL. LEGGE: Robert Burns' familiar observation, "The best-laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley" can surely be applied to missiles and men. Judging from the reports which emanate from Cape Canaveral, there is a chance that the best-laid missile plans also may often go astray.

And yet, to those of us who saw the havoc which the early V2 missiles wrought on London and Antwerp in 1944, deadly accuracy and destruction can be achieved by missiles. The study of the problems of men and missiles is therefore the one effort which this civilization cannot avoid if it is to survive the atomic era.

Today, Air Marshal W. A. Curtis will speak to us in two capacities; as a leader of men and as a potential maker of missiles. In peace and in war Air Marshal Curtis has been dedicated to the conquest of the air. During the First World War he served as a fighter pilot in France and before being invalided home, he had been awarded the notable decorations of the Distinguished Service Cross and Bar for his service to the Royal Navy. After the war he retained an active role in Canada's Armed Forces by joining the renowned Toronto Scottish Regiment. At the same time, he did not renounce his interest in flying and was one of the founders, and later President, of the Toronto Flying Club. When Auxiliary Squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force were formed in 1932, he transferred from the Militia to the City of Toronto Squadron which he afterwards commanded. On the outbreak of War our speaker was one of the few people already trained to serve in an emergency and he was given a high appointment in the Commonwealth Air Training Plan. His ability was further recognized when he was sent overseas as the Deputy Commander in Chief from 1941 to 1944. Then in 1947 he attained the highest pinnacle the Royal Canadian Air Force has to offer when he was designated Chief of the Air Staff.

On his retirement from the Air Force in 1953 he joined A. V. Roe of Canada Limited as Vice-Chairman of the Board and is, therefore, a leader of that magnificent team which has created the astounding Arrow Interceptor Aeroplane. We congratulate Air Marshal Curtis on the triumphs of that great Canadian craft and we hope that it may soon surpass every world record. Despite his exacting tasks as the leader of Canada's Air Force and then as a maker of Canada's aeroplanes, Air Marshal Curtis has found time for good works and has been President of the Royal Canadian Air Force Association. He has also devoted himself to the establishment of another university in Toronto to be known as York University. For his many accomplishments our speaker has been made a Companion of the Bath, a Commander of the British Empire, and a Doctor of Laws. Gentlemen, we are honoured to hear Air Marshal W. A. Curtis speak to us authoritatively on the supreme subject of the future--'Men and Missiles'.

AIR MARSHAL CURTIS: I am honoured to be your guest speaker at this Remembrance Day luncheon. November 11th still has particular meaning for thousands of Canadians but for thousands more, the day passes unnoticed. We were all so hopeful when we finally won World War II. Many people said, "That was the war to end wars." Veterans were still busy adjusting themselves to peacetime conditions when Russia decided to disturb the peace of the world and the "Cold War" started. Thus, our peace hopes were dashed almost immediately. I suppose the present unrest is part of the evolutionary process we must go through. However, our generation seems to be getting more than its share of wars and rumors of war. In any event, when we pause to consider what we really did win in the two world wars, it is difficult to see anything tangible. The only thing I can think of is time. We did win time. Time for the governments of the world to learn to live with one another; to discuss our differences around the conference table. The United Nations Organization is far from perfect but it is a tremendous improvement on its predecessor the "League of Nations". This is a big step forward.

In war the greatest cost is "human life". True, we do put into it all of our "material resources", but they are insignificant in comparison with the human sacrifice. In the "Cold War" we are asked to give almost as much of our "material resources" as we gave during the last war, and if we want to prevent another shooting war, we, in company with all the Western Powers, must be prepared to continue to carry this burden. This is particularly difficult when the threat has been present for so long a time that we get used to living under it. Down through the ages, we of the English speaking countries have rebelled at paying the price of preparedness in peacetime, and as a result we have paid a much greater price in the long run, not only in material wealth but in the much more valuable asset, human lives.

Preparedness now means international thinking and planning. This is a broader field for Canadian military men than we ever faced before, and I am pleased to tell you that our officers are giving a good account of themselves. In all military planning, our officers are guided by Canada's defence policy which is widely known to be one of support for the United Nations, for NATO, and for the defence of North America. A joint effort, A partnership. This is neither "subservience" nor "compromising our sovereignty". I was one of the joint planners on the Canadian team from 1944 to 1947, and I can assure you that at no time from 1944 until my retirement in 1953, did any American officer, or government official, try to dominate these meetings, or force an American opinion or plan on that body. In fact, during my service experience from the time I went overseas in 1941 until 1953, I experienced nothing but the greatest cooperation and assistance from members of the United States services. They were at all times considerate of our government policy, and went out of their way to meet our wishes.

The defence of North America in this day and age is a big problem, and defence against air attack is the major task. The North American Air Defence System is designed to protect the great retaliatory power of SAC (Strategic Air Command) and the industrial heart of the continent. Canada's geographical position astride the northern approaches to most of SAC's retaliatory bases and the heart of North American industrial might, demands that we take every military decision only after the greatest possible coordination with our allies. For any who do not believe there is a good dividend in team play, there are the unfortunate examples of Belgium, Holland and Denmark prior to, and during, the World War II period, to contemplate.

Having established an alliance, and our government having approved of joint planning teams, it is only common prudence to develop the closest possible association with other members of the team. This, the RCAF and the USAF, did immediately after World War II, and have continued to do ever since. It is one of the really bright spots of collaboration on the international scene. There is no possibility of forming a sensible military plan unless it is done in close conjunction with the sister services of our principal allies. Likewise, we must know what they are thinking at the earliest possible, moment so that they can be guided into suitable compromises with the operational requirement and our national sensitivity. Civilian government officials are not asked to assess any military plan until it can be outlined in detail. It cannot be properly presented to them until there has been a great deal of technical coordination. During this technical coordination there is a constant consideration of political and economic factors on the Canadian side in accordance with our policies, attitudes and restrictions, which are established at civilian policy levels. I might say at this point that the responsibility for the Strategic Air capability against an enemy was, by unanimous agreement of NATO, vested in the United States, and is carried out by the U.S. Strategic Air Command. We should be thankful that we share the much less expensive role of assisting in the air defence of North America.

A word or two about missiles might be in order at this time. I am not surprised that there is considerable confusion in trying to grasp this subject. There are so many different kinds of missiles and quite a number of guidance systems as well as functional uses. Also, some are in the testing stage, some in the design stage, and a very small number in use. First, there is the active and semi-active type. The active carries its own radar transmitter and receiver. Sends out radar signals and homes on the return. The semi-active carries a receiver only. This receives the return signal sent out by the parent aircraft or ground control station. Next, there is the passive type, known as the infra red, which is a heat seeker. Ballistic missiles have a system of their own, known as programme launching. This can be done entirely within the missile itself by gyros, accelerometers, and allied precision equipment, or control can be exercised from the ground by data link, which is a form of radio communication. The first system is jam proof. The second can be jammed but it is capable of course correction within narrow limits during the early stages of flight.

Missiles can be divided into four general functional roles: Ground to ground, which includes: Short range missiles such as Lacrosse; Medium range--up to 1,500 miles, known as ICBM's such as Black Knight, Thor; Long Range--up to 6,000 miles, known as ICBM's such as Atlas. Ground to air: Bomarc, Bloodhound, Mike, Sea Slug. Air to Air: Falcon, Firestreak, Sidewinder, Sparrow. Air to ground: Blue Steele, Rascal. There are many others. I have not tried to include them all, nor have I tried to identify them by country or the service responsible for their development. Not one of these is designed to destroy any of the others in flight. Some of them can destroy the carrying vehicle. Others can destroy their base. Some of these are in operational units ready for use. Some have been used in the fighting at Quemoy and the off-shore islands. The one that holds the greatest potential threat to us is, of course, the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, when it eventually is ready for use by the military forces.

At present, there is no way of destroying an ICBM in flight, and there is not likely to be for some time. The manned bomber and ICBM's, where applicable, will be used to destroy their bases. The ICBM will travel at roughly 18,000 feet per second. By comparison, the fastest artillery shell travels at about 3,000 feet per second. We will not know the missile's true course until it has been under way for at least 10 minutes--the total time for a 6,000 mile missile flight is 32.4 minutes. This leaves 22 minutes to calculate the missile's course and destroy it. Getting a reading on the missile's course takes about 2 minutes. Our electronic brain receives this information and figures a course of interception. It will take 2 minutes for the electronic brain to make these calculations to guide our defensive interception. All of this, you will agree, is pretty accurate detailed work and does not allow for errors or fumbles. The equipment and the brainpower to create and operate it represents a fantastic investment.

I would like to explain in as few words as possible the reason why the manned bomber will be used for some considerable time after ICBMs are available for service use. First, the Russians have over 1,500, and are building more. The new ones will be supersonic. Second, bombers are much more reliable and versatile than missiles. Third, until the exact location, that is latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds of the enemy missile base is known, it is impossible to set a course into our missile for it to fly. Bombers, on the other hand, can be started on their mission and be redirected en route if need be, or if an enemy fires a missile in the meantime, thus giving our radar crew an opportunity to get a bearing on the base. Aircrew are trained to recognize special types of buildings and installations, both visually and to a limited degree on their radar scopes. With its human crew it is capable of "on the spot decision". It is also capable of carrying out its mission with a number of its instruments unserviceable; something a missile cannot do, and a situation that occurs all too frequently. True, it is a relatively simple matter to hit our large industrial areas with missiles, and in all probability this would be done. However, destroying missile bases would have top priority for any country at war. This requires greater accuracy than area destruction. If manned bombers are going to be a threat, then what is the best means of destroying them? Enemy countermeasures, radar and radio, jamming, will be used. That we know now. Missiles are helpless if the jamming is on their frequency or if the ground control system is having difficulty either from jamming or heavy static. The manned interceptor with its human brain can switch from one frequency to another, while in flight, if the frequency on which they are operating is jammed. Early warning messages will indicate the general area of the raid, and the crew in a fairly long range aircraft will be able to do better than any other form of defence. I hope this will give you some idea of the problems facing the military advisors of which I have had some personal experience. I can assure you that these are not easily or lightly discharged, nor is the final responsibility for defence ever forgotten.

I suggest to you that two things stand out clearly. First, that the defence of North America, containing the deterrent power of the Strategic Air Command, is a major responsibility in maintaining the military balance of power. It has been the major military factor in preventing global war and is still our best hope of continuing to keep the peace. It is as important to our allied nations as it is to Canada, that this capability be protected and maintained. If the government of Canada should decide that we are going to reduce our capability and commitment for this purpose, then it is inevitable that the USA will have to take over the job, even if it means flying manned interceptor aircraft from Canadian bases. If we were to make such a decision, it would be at that point, and at that point only, that we would face the risk of subservience or loss of sovereignty. This, in my opinion, will not happen.

Outer space travel is the next step beyond missilery. The X15, which is due to fly next year, is the first effort by man to fly outside the earth's atmosphere, It will be done in a manned rocket. Pilots are being conditioned for the job now. You will be interested in the forecast of future flying events, which Dr. G. N. Patterson, President of the Canadian Aeronautical Institute, called attention to recently. This forecast was published by Jas. B. Edson, Assistant Director, Research and Development of the U.S. Army. This schedule is as follows: 19581962: Launching of unmanned vehicles around the moon and back to the vicinity of the earth. Solution of the re-entry problem and recovery of satellites. Progress in readying man biologically for space flight. 1963-1967: Launching of highly developed satellites with payloads of 5,000-10,000 lbs. Permanent manned satellite stations. 1968-1973: First manned landing on the moon. Establishment of permanent lunar bases. First landing on Mars. Whether one agrees with this timetable, or not, it is evident that in the next 50 years the world will witness a phenomenal expansion from aeronautics to astronautics. The world is on the threshold of the greatest aviation development it has ever known, and all the things that made it possible started a short 55 years ago with the first flight of a heavier-than-air plane by the Wright brothers. We are to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Powered Flight in Canada next year. It will be 50 years on February 23rd since the Honourable J. A. D. McCurdy first flew at Baddeck, N.S.

If we are to insure our growth as a sovereign nation, respected in the councils of the world; if we are to insure our position in the highly technological age now beginning; and, above all, if we are to play our fair role in protecting that precious element of time, the one thing earned by the selfless human sacrifices in two world wars, we must face the fact that there is a continuing price to be paid. By using the time to seek international understanding while deterring aggression through strength, the price will be in terms of material only. As I said earlier, Remembrance Day marks a period when we should assess how well we have protected and used the time bought by thousands of young lives. Because of the price paid for that time, our performance must inevitably fall short of what it should be. I believe that within the limits of human frailty we have made good use of the time and have conscientiously striven to protect and extend it. If we continue to approach these responsibilities with energy, understanding and determination, the sacrifice of the young people we remember at this time will not have been made in vain.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Major Arthur J. Langley.