RAM team

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Pochmara

Michigan Air National Guard
Was also in D.C. Air National Guard

Former commander of 113W - 8 years

Ang asst. to head of AFMC - Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-

Patterson
3 years in ANG headquarters also

outside the air defense world, flew fighters all life and when larry arnold and
paul weaver wanted someone to do study they wanted somebody
experienced in fighters with knowledge of air defense, but not a card-
carrying air defender
I have sat air defense alert in japan, but I was never a 1AF type of person
and never did ad alert in the u.s.
At national guard bureau, air defense was part of my responsibilities, but I
was close enough and have credibility but far enoough away where I would
be credible also
I would not be preaching to the choir

I questioned the need for the stuyd

We went in there with some peopl whow
When we put together the team, they wanted me to be an honest broker and I
was told to say it like it is
I would not be influenced
When I chose the members, I chose some who didn't like air defense, who
were against it
Contractor from RAND
Some people like myself who went, "I don't know"
Two other generals felt the same way
Some people on 1 af staaf

I assembled a team who could balance each other out

About 4 people in each camp
4 people against it,
4 who loved it,
4 who were neutral, willing to say let's prove it one way or the other

NCT0067820
Where did you guys visit?

NORAD, Air National Guard Bureau,

A lack of understanding by air national guard bureau on the mission
On my budget, but an air force mission
Nobody advocating it in the ang
Ace was going hey this is an ang mission that is funded by the ang so they
didn't advocate it
Nobody wsa there as an advocate of the misison except 1 AF
They didn't have a big brother excpet norad
Ace vice commander
Went to head of ang, head of national guard
Briefed all the tags of the states w/the mission
Went to 1 1th af also sitting alert - alaska

How were you perceived?

Universally, excpet for going up to norad, I think when we walked in the

door, we were perceived I can't say with reticence but they weren't
necessarily supporters, not necessarily against it, but we did not walk into
the door w/friendly audiences. They weren't hostile

It wasnot necessarily a welcomed audience of support, but universally when

we left, to the overall concensus of the people there was iunderstand and oh
by the way laf is valuable and needs to continue doing the work it does

1 ) we traced why you needed air sovereignty from constitution all the way
down into law - the af is an organization for defense in the u.s., not for
offense and it's inlaw, you have to do it
2) it is cost-efficient, we're not spending a lot of money on it
3) let's figure out what we're doing with the u.s. I would say let's get down
to practical matters, when we're going to take down land borders, get rid
of ins, border patrol, dea, take all our sea and port borders down and not
have any physical protections of land and sea, then you will get rid of the
air portion - 3 defenses, air land and sea, as long as you have sea and
land you have to do air and that's the most vulnerable - what were
chances of taking downland and sea, zero, therefore you need to get

NCT0067821
 behindit and support it and make it as efficient as possible, it is the most
vulnerable part of our triad of defense of the u.s. and look what happened

we started with monolitihic threat of air bombers, built montage, picture of

bin laden
we examined the threat and knew he was most dangerous man in the world,
we told people, that is the type of propblems you're having
if you are going to protect land, air and sea, you can't take down the
organization that is doing it and doing it pretty efficiently
we looked at efficiency of laf w/167 people, a small naf

rand corp. had recommended reduction of entire effort, they were on

contract at langley and came in and gave us a briefing
I told anybody on team if they didn't agree w/anything in report, they could
have declination in the report and nobody did
Rand came back and completely modified its study and their study started
where ours left off

RAND was hired by ACC command and control to look at consolidating

efforts of 1AF, they wanted to combine sectors and put it into NORAD

Some units saying: why should we sit alert w/7 sites,

7 was the minimum and oh by the way, holes on the east coast from Virginia
up

we briefed that there were holes on east coast and recommended six stations
of airplanes

started w/1,500 airplanes involved, 60 or so alert sites and eventually down

to 10 then to 7 and some people were advocating, before the study, cutting it
down to 4, consolidating the sectors
a whole bunch of people, including fighter pilots, who said why am I sitting
ad alert to intercept a Cessna 172 off its flight plan
that was the misperception of people
it was difficult, especially at lower levels getting people to understand
concept of sovereignty as a nation

4th thing that sold the briefing: concept of sovereignty of a nation

every nation wants to be sovereign but all nations go thru it differently

NCT0067822
nation's that can't afford it can't afford land, sea and air to make it sovereign

we're the world's greatest power so we spend evenmore on sovereignty and

it means an awful lot to us
we're doing this to make sure someone can't penetrate our airspace
general officers at least at 3-star anad above understand what sovereignty
means as a nation

you have your house in a neighborhood and you don't want anyone to break
into it but anybody at will can break intoyour house when you're not theere
or when you're there and you really can't stop them ... do you leave your
door open, do you unlock your doors because you can't stop somebody?

We're not going to do that as a nation, we're going to make some attempt to
keep our doors locked and protect ourselves and that's what sovereignty
means
1 -hour briefing
paul weaver was a believer
gen davis said how can I help you
briefed all directors of ang

Was this type of team unusual?

Typically people go to an outside source when they want studies, as opposed

to an internal study

Larry arnold and staff smart to do it this way

They allowed me a free hand on how to put it together

He stood back and just let it happen I have to give him an awful lot of credit
Conclusion of report: whatever you put together I may not agree w/you, you
say it how you think it is and I will listen to you

Had payne Stewart happened on a weekend where we didn't intercept them:

Internal in the u.s.
We need better communications
We weren't equipped at handling things internally

NCT0067823
r Phase 2 - where do we go in the nature?
A graph in the study,
Interest in air defense going down, air force and population will goup

We predict people are going to be more interested in the future

We looked at cruise missiles, number of missiles who had them,

asymmetrical threats that come from countries - chemicals, biologial

When we start looking at all those threats out there, there will be a bigger
interest in air defense

Phase 2 - what is the future? We talked about having better sensors, things
that can detect things, better radar systems, intelligence gathering, we said
we needed better communications
The af was

We recommended better aircraft is aircraft is going to be method of air

^^ sovereignty, recommended f22s to plug up holes on east coast

Could have gotten from here to there - otis to wtc - w/f22

Looked at consolidating other missions and making it more efficient, putting
rescue in there

recommended a better integration of air force officer to 1 AF, which is

mainly made up of ANG
Bring more people into AF and cycle them through

NCT0067824