Gap Filler Detail

1960 – National Archives of Canada

S10-136-80/5 TD 0263 (CCE)

MEMORANDUM

19 Sep 60

AMTS

Gap Filler Construction,
CADIN Programme

Serious concern is felt with regard to three facets of the Gap Filler portion of the CADIN construction programme. These are:

  1. Lack of TB approval;

  2. Selection of Radar Equipment;

  3. Siting changes

As you will recall, CCE submission for the first 35 Gap Fillers was forwarded 18 Dec 59 (nearly a year ago) and after being held in the DM's office for several months was forwarded to TB in June 1960. We have been advised that correspondence has been exchanged between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence, but to date we do not know whether the submission will be approved or not.

In the matter of equipment, we understand that the USAF recommendations have done a 360º turn and they are now negotiating for modification to the FPS 18 in lieu of manufacturing the proposed FPS 63. Though we are told that space and power requirements will remain the same, it would be most unusual if important details in regard to wiring, and positioning of equipment were not affected. Also, at a meeting in Colorado Springs, it was suggested that if the price per unit was very high, the number of Gap Filler radars purchased may be reduced to keep the total cost within the budget. We have no assurance that this would not affect the 45 in the CADIN programme.

The siting changes have been generated by the RCAF on the basis of faulty or overlapping coverage in the original siting, when applied to recent established criteria. Field siting teams have been working all summer on 23 re-locations and though their reports are not complete, it is already clear that many of these new sites will be expensive and will require long access roads or extensive airlift both for construction and maintenance.

In view of the foregoing, the RCAF position in respect to this project is not too satisfactory, as illustrated by the following points:

  1. Engineering work can not proceed beyond preliminary drawings, etc prior to TB project approval.

  2. Engineering work was stopped at those sites which are to be re-located, as soon as we were advised.

  3. The work remaining is nearly complete.

  4. If and/or when the Gap Filer submission is approved, we can only proceed with 22 sites.

  5. We will have to obtain approval to engage consultants for the re-located sites.

  6. No field work will be possible until next spring, hence no construction start at any of the new sites before 1962.

  7. A new submision to TB covering the 23 new sites, (almost certainly to be considerably more expensive) will be made on receipt of preliminaries late next summer.

In view of the critical treatment that the present submission is receiving from the Department of Finance, it seems reasonable to assume that major changes, affecting at least half the sites, will have a rough time. it is suggested that COps, CTel and COR review the Gap Filler requirement in its revised configuration and provide supporting data to be available when we request authority to engage consultants for the 23 new sites.

(RB Whiting) A/C
CCE
6-8702