10 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4> 



LACK OF FUNDS PRECLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF OTHER TOWERS 



Mr. Chartk. It was not possible to fund Texas towers 1 and 5 at 

 the same time as the contract was awarded for 3 and 4, so they were 

 deferred until the following year, and when funding difficulties were 

 encountered in that year, they were further deferred and ultimately a 

 decision was made not to construct them at all in view of the location 

 of the new radar installations in Nova Scotia and Maine. 



Senator Stennis. It was a matter of money, then, and the funds 

 available — if I may intervene, Mr. Counsel. That has a bearing at 

 this point? We have been asked these questions by the press and 

 others. We want to clear it up right now. The failure to construct 

 these other towers resulted from the limited money available therefor. 

 Is that correct? 



Mr. Charyk. It was in fact, Mr. Chairman, a fmiding limitation 

 that led to the decision, or that forced the elimination of the construc- 

 tion of towers 1 and 5 at the same time that we proceeded with the 

 others. 



Senator Stennis. Well, do you mean that those towers were just 

 stricken out of the program because of lack of money ? 



Mr. Charyk. It was a question of priorities, and the fmids avail- 

 able for the purpose of the Texas tower construction. 



Senator Stennis. All right. Counsel, will you yield further on 

 that? Wliat did you do, then, as a substitute? Is that when you 

 strengthened your radar installations on the coastline? 



priority for additional towers reduced 



Mr. Charyk. In subsequent years, it was found possible to proceed 

 with the construction of the new land-based radars in Nova Scotia and 

 in Maine, and it was felt that these new installations would provide 

 adequate coverage so that the priority for additional Texas towers 

 was considerably reduced, and, of course, they were not constructed. 



Senator Stennis. Well, this will be my last question on that point. 

 By the same token, why didn't you just abandon Texas tower No. 4 

 and the other towers, and let tlie land-based installations serve in 

 their stead ? 



Mr. Charyk. The Texas towers 2, 3, and 4 provide a coverage out 

 to sea which originally increased the available time for counteraction 

 to the order of 45 minutes. With the increased speed of aircraft, this 

 subsequently became approximately half that value. But at the 

 speeds of present-day jet aircraft, there would still be a matter of 20 

 or 25 minutes advantage by the use of the installations as shown in 

 the diagram. 



Senator Stennis. Well, we can argue about this a long time, Mr. 

 Secretaiy. But how are you getting along without Texas tower No. 

 4 now ? As I understand it you have no plan to replace it. 



Mr. Charyk. We have no plans to replace it, Mr. Chairman, because 

 the time period for reactivation of such an installation would be a 

 matter of several years. With the changing nature of the threat, it is 

 felt that the investment would not be worth it at this time. 



