MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1974
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida, Chairman
EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland BURT L. TALCOTT, California
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York
K. GUNN McKAY, Utah
ROBERT C. NICHOLAS III, Staff Assistant
PART 2
AIR FORCE
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi
JOHN J. ROONEY, New York
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida
OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana
JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee
EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky
DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania
TOM STEED, Oklahoma
GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois
JOHN M. SLACK, West Virginia
JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., Georgia
NEAL SMITH, Iowa
ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut
JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, Washington
JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York
JOHN J. McFALL, California
EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
BOB CASEY, Texas
FRANK E. EVANS, Colorado
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
EDWARD R. ROYBAL, California
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana
GUNN McKAY, Utah
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
EDITH GREEN, Oregon
ROBERT O. TIERNAN, Rhode Island
BILL CHAPPELL, JR., Florida
BILL D. BURLISON, Missouri
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan
JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona
WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio
ROBERT H. MICHEL, Illinois
SILVIO O. CONTE, Massachusetts
GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York
GARNER E. SHRIVER, Kansas
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
MARK ANDREWS, North Dakota
LOUIS C. WYMAN, New Hampshire
BURT L. TALCOTT, California
WENDELL WYATT, Oregon
JACK EDWARDS, Alabama
WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa
ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
J. KENNETH ROBINSON, Virginia
CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio
EARL B. RUTH, North Carolina
VICTOR V. VEYSEY, California
LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania
KEITH F. MAINLAND, Clerk and Staff Director
STAFF ASSISTANTS
GEORGE E. EVANS
ROBERT B. FOSTER
JOHN M. GARRITY
AUBREY A. GUNNELS
CHARLES G. HARDIN
JAY B. HOwE
F. MICHAEL HUGO
THOMAS J. KINGFIELD
ROBERT L. KNISELY
RICHARD N. MALOW
MILTON B. MEREDITH
AMERICO S. MICONI
DEMPSEY B. MIZELLE
ENID MORRISON
PETER J. MURPHY, Jr.
HENRY A. NEIL, Jr.
ROBERT C. NICHOLAS III
BYRON S. NIELSON
JOHN G. OSTHAUS
FREDERICK F. PFLUGER
JOHN G. PLASHAL
EDWIN F. POWERS
SAMUEL R. PRESTON
DONALD E. RICHBOURG
EARL C. SILSBY
G. HOMER SKARIN
CHARLES W. SNODGRASS
HUNTER L. SPILLAN
PAUL E. THOMSON
GEORGE A. URIAN
DEREK J. VANDER SCHAAF
EUGENE B. WILHELM
J. DAVID WILLSON
SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS
C. R. ANDERSON
LERoY R. KIRKPATRICK
DAVID A. SCHMIDT
DENNIS F. CREEDON
NOTE.-This Surveys and Investigations supervisory staff is supplemented by selected
personnel borrowed on a reimbursable basis for varying lengths of time from various
agencies to staff up specific studies and investigations. The current average annual full-
time personnel equivalent is approximately 42.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
GERARD J. CHOUINARD
PAUL V. FARMER
SANDRA A. GILBERT
EVA K. HARRIS
VIRGINIA MAY KEYSER
MARCIA L. MATTS
FRANCES MAY
GENEVIEVE A. MEALY
JUNE A. MEREDITH
LAWRENCE C. MILLER
MARY ALICE SAUER
DALE M. SHULAW
AUSTIN G. SMITH
RANDOLPH THOMAS
BETTY A. SWANSON
SHARON K. TINSLEY
GEMMA M. WEIBLINGER
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1974
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1973.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
WITNESSES
RUFUS L. CROCKETT, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS)
MAJ. GEN. M. R. REILLY, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
H. P. RIETMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CIVIL ENGINEERING
JOHN H. LEE, DIRECTORATE OF BUDGET
COL. VICTOR J. VILLONE, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
JOHN W. WARD, JR., DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
COL. JACOB A. MORROW, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, MAINTENANCE,
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
LT. COL. L. W. REED, DIRECTORATE OF AEROSPACE PROGRAMS
LT. COL. B. B. BALLIF, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING
LT. COL. TOM M. SHOOK, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING
LT. COL. J. A. BAIRD, DIRECTORATE OF PLANS AND HOSPITALIZA-
TION
LT. COL. CARL MANSPERGER, DIRECTORATE OF LOGISTICS PLANS
AND PROGRAMS
LT. COL. RICHARD R. STANTON, DIRECTORATE OF DEVELOPMENT
COL. ROBERT M. MOORE, OFFICE CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS
MAJ. G. C. KEARL, DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS
A. A. JOHNSTON, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
LT. COL. GEORGE RUTLAND, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
RICHARD JONKERS, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MAJ. DAVID M. CORNELL, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
COL. GEORGE L. SPUHLER, AIR FORCE ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE
CENTER
LT. COL. CARL SCHAFFHAUSER, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
SYSTEMS
MAJ. CARL GRANBERRY, DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS
LT. COL. SAMUEL HEROD, DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS
LT. COL. EDWIN ANDERSON, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
MAJ. GERALD ROBERTELLO, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
Mr. SIKES. We now have Military Construction, Air Force. We will
insert in the record pages VI and VII of the financial summary.
[The pages follow :]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
PROGRAM AND FINANCING (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
Budget plan (amounts for
construction actions programed) Obligations
1972 1973 1974 1972 1973 1974
act estimate estimate act estimate estimate
Program by activities:
Direct:
Major construction------......--------..----....... 252,264 239,329 278,900 216,970 288,700 255,800
Minor construction -....--.-. ....- 18, 605 10,000 15, 000 17,990 15, 000 15, 200
Planning. -..---- -------- 16,170 17,000 18, 000 17,103 18, 800 19,950
Supporting activities ................. 2,295 3,000 1,067 2,700 2,450
Total direct .................. 289, 334 269, 329 311,900 253,130 325, 200 293, 400
Reimbursable (total) .... -. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 2,000 2,000 ....- . .-- 1, 800 2,600
Total .......-...... - 289, 334 271,329 313, 900 253,130 327, 000 296, 000
Financing:
Receipts and reimbursements from:
Federal funds.......... -2,000 -2,000 57 -1,800 -2,600
Non-Federal sources- ..-.. .. ..-.. . . . ............ ....... ........ 474 -
Unobligated balance available, start of year:
For completion of prior year budget plans ..---..----- --184,513 -220,703 -151,055
Available to finance new budget plans---.. ------------- --10,000 ..-...... . .... -10,000
Reprograming from (-) or to prior year budget
plans -........ 517 -13,777 -10,000 ......................
Unobligated balance avialable, end of year:
For completion of prior year budget plans..------------------------- 220, 703 151,055 159, 555
Available to finance subsequent year
budget plans__ 10,000 ------------------10,000 .
Budget authority.-.....- .- .-.-.. 289,851 265,552 291,900 289,851 265,552 291, 900
Budget authority:
Appropriation---- - -- -_ 289,189 265, 552 291,900 289,189 265, 552 291,900
Transferred from other accounts. 662 - 662 ..
Appropriation (adjusted)... .......-...... 289,851 265,552 291,900 289,851 265,552 291,900
Relation of obligations to outlays:
Obligations incurred net---------..------ 253,661 325,200 293, 400
Obligated balance, start of year- - ----- 312, 638 250,905 315,105
Obligated balance, end of year .............................------... -250,905 -315,105 -336,505
Outlays-- 315, 393 261, 000 272, 000
OBJECT CLASSIFICATION (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
Department of the Air Force:
Direct obligations:
Other services .... ...- .. ...........
Lands and structures.. ---------------
Total direct obligations ..-..........
Reimbursable obligations:
Lands and structures ...-..-. -....
Total, Department of the Air Force ........
Allocation accounts:
Other services ............. ...... .
Lands and structures ... ..--
-....... ............-...... . 1,500 1,400 1,300
49,027 46,800 46,100
......... - -. -...... 50, 527 48,200 47,400
-....... --.....-.-. --------------.- 1,800 2,600
_........ .......... .... 50,527 50,000 50,000
------------- 12,000 19,000 20,000
-.---. --.............-.. . .- 190,603 258,000 226,000
Total, allocation accounts ..- -.. .-... .. . .............. 202, 603 277, 000 246, 000
Total obligations..----........ . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... 253,130 327, 000 296,000
Obligations are distributed as follows:
Defense-Military:
Army--- 165,754 225,000 185,100
Navy -----------------. 36,381 50,000 60,000
Air Force ...-. 50, 527 50, 000 50, 000
Department of Transportation ... 468 2,000 900
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN
Mr. SIKEs. We are very happy to welcome here this morning Mr.
Davy Crockett, who is appearing in lieu of Mr. Turner, whom he
has ably assisted for many years. We are sorry Mr. Turner is not
feeling well today. Send him our best wishes. I know he is ably rep-
resented by you, Mr. Crockett.
This is your first appearance as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary.
We give our congratulations to you. You have the appreciation of
the committee for many years of good service. We will place your
biography in the record. Would you please proceed.
[The biography follows:]
RUFUs L. CROCKETT-ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
(INSTALLATIONS)
Mr. Rufus L. Crockett became Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Installations) on October 1, 1972. He is responsible for: installation
planning and programing; bases and facility construction; family housing con-
struction and maintenance; management and real estate; real property main-
tenance; and directs and coordinates the initiation, determination, development,
formulation, and monitoring of base utilization. He was born in Lancaster
County, S.C., September 6, 1917, and spent his early years there. He graduated
from the University of South Carolina in 1939 with a bachelor's degree in civil
engineering.
In 1940, Mr. Crockett began Government service with the memphis District,
Corps of Engineers as a surveyman-engineering aide. Two years later, he
became a project engineer for the Office, Chief of Engineers.
From 1943-46, Mr. Crockett served as an officer in the U.S. Army after
attending Officer Candidate School at Fort Belvoir. Upon graduation, he re-
mained at the Fort Belvoir Engineering School and taught for 2 years. His last
year in the service was spent with Permafrost Research in Alaska. Afterwards,
Mr. Crockett returned to civilian life and the Office, Chief of Engineers from
1946-54, and worked as a project engineer on various overseas construction
projects including Okinawa, Philippines, Turkey, Labrador and Greenland.
His next 5 years of service were spent with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force
(HQ USAF) as Deputy Chief, Special Projects Branch, Construction Division;
and as Associate Director of Facilities Support, Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installations.
From 1959 to 1962, Mr. Crockett served with the Air Defense Command in Colo-
rado as Associate Deputy for Civil Engineering: and as Technical Associate,
Deputy for Site Activation, Ballistic Systems Division, Air Force Systems Com-
mand, California. In 1962, he returned to Headquarters, USAF as Associate
Deputy Director for Civil Engineering Operations, and in 1969 became Associate
Director of Civil Engineering.
In 1965 and in 1972, Mr. Crockett received the Air Force Gold Medal for Ex-
ceptional Civilian Service.
In 1967-68, Mr. Crockett attended the Air War College resident course at
Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.
STATEMENT OF ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE (INSTALLATIONS)
Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a
pleasure for me to present the Air Force military construction pro-
gram to this committee and to discuss our request for appropriations
for the fiscal year 1974. We are grateful for the guidance and the
support which this committee has so generously extended and we wish
to assure you it is our desire to be fully responsive to that guidance.
Our programs have been formulated to provide the maximum aero-
space capability for the Air Force and our objective is to manage the
programs approved by Congress to achieve the highest quality facili-
ties in the most efficient and economical manner within authorized
allowances.
With me today are: Major General Reilly, the Air Force Director of
Civil Engineering, who will discuss in detail the overall features of
the program.
I would like to introduce Dr. Billy Welch, Special Assistant for
Environmental Protection. Dr. Welch joined us approximately a year
ago and is responsible for Air Force compliance with all statutory
requirements relating to protection of the environment. Other Air
Staff supporting witnesses are present to support individual line items
in the program.
The fiscal year 1974 program that we present today includes only
the most urgent of our new facility and modernization and replace-
ment requirements. Each line item has been carefully reviewed and
approved by 'the Air Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
and the Office of Management and Budget. Unfortunately many valid
requirements proposed by the major commands had to be deferred on
a priority basis to later years due to overall Air Force program
limitations.
Our program has been carefully screened to insure that no requests
have been included which have been invalidated by the realinement
of missions and activities announced by the Secretary of Defense on
April 17, 1973.
Our construction budget request this year totals $424 million. It
consists of $312 million for regular base construction, $82 million for
family housing, $10 million for the Air Force Reserve, and $20 million
for the Air National Guard. I would like to discuss the major features
of each of these programs.
Our request for the Active Forces, excluding family housing, totals
$312 million. General Reilly is prepared to discuss in detail the major
categories, including selected major programs. I would like, however,
to underscore the major emphasis and a few significant programs and
projects in the fiscal year 1974 MCP.
The programs and projects included in the fiscal year 1974 MCP
give support to new and continuing missions, provide for moderniza-
tion and replacement of existing facilities, and finance additional
increments of advance planning and minor constructi n. The distri-
bution of the program between these functional and program areas
indicates the priority of our greatest needs in the next fiscal year.
We have included $35 million to support new missions. The largest
project representative of this group is the request for the first incre-
ment of operational and maintenance facilities for the Advanced Air-
borne Command Post at Andrews Air Force Base, $13.5 million. These
facilities are required to support the new 747 aircraft recently author-
ized by the Congress for the National Military Command System.
For continuing missions $52 million is requested. The largest
individual program and nationally significant effort will provide $9
million to continue the Air Force effort in air and water pollution
abatement. The remaining projects satisfy urgent deficiencies in all
mission areas and construction categories, including several large elec-
trical and other military support items for established missions. The
Air Force is greatly concerned with the need for improvement in the
5
Ldequacy of its utility systems and will seek to give greater recog-
lition to this area in the future.
For modernization and replacement of existing facilities we re-
luest your approval for projects which total $192 million. You will
note that this amount is approximately 61 percent of our total pro-
gram. In prior years, we have advised the committee that our back-
og of construction is in excess of $5 billion. Accordingly, we have
again allocated the major portion of the military construction pro-
gram to projects which modernize, improve, or replace existing sub-
standard facilities.
In the last 4 years we have increased the annual level of funds ap-
plied to this purpose from $52 million to $192 million requested this
year. In this year's program we make the following requests: (1) $31
million for the third major increment of the Air Force Logistics
Command, depot modernization program which was initiated in the
fiscal year 1971 MCP; (2) $29 million for new major administrative
facilities, including two facilities long overdue for replacement; $20
million for a new, urgently needed personnel support headquarters
for the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center, Lowry Air Force
Base, Colo., and $4 million for the Armament Development Test Cen-
ter at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.; (3) $25 million for modernization
of medical facilities, including replacement of two professionally ob-
solete hospitals, the first at F. E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo.,
where the existing main building was constructed in the late 1880's,
and Laughlin Air Force Base, Tex., where the existing facility is
World War II frame construction; (4) $30 million for dormitories as
part of our extensive program for improvement of living conditions
for our enlisted personnel; and (5) $77 million for other projects
which will improve or replace deteriorated, substandard facilities.
We see in this modernization .and replacement program the best
combination of improvement of existing facilities for extended utiliza-
tion, demolition of substandard structures which are beyond the point
of economical recovery, and the provision of essential new facilities
to achieve overall economy through increased responsiveness and maxi-
mum operational efficiency.
In the general support category, our program includes requests for
$18 million for advance planning land design, and $15 million for the
minor construction program, a total of $33 million. The advance
planning program provides funds for professional services for the
design of future years' programs. The minor construction program
provides financing for small construction projects which have an im-
portance in the support of Air Force missions out of all proportion
to their individual cost. These projects 'are for urgent requirements
which were not identified in time for inclusion in the current military
construction program and cannot reasonably wait to be programed
in the next year.
INSTALLATIONS MANAGEMENT
I would like now to discuss several major elements in our manage-
ment of the Air Force construction and real property programs.
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
In our last two appearances before this committee, we discussed
Air Force efforts to achieve better overall construction management
'' C~'31 lac~-n~ ---- ----b
by the use of innovative construction techniques. It was our desire to
obtain major advantages in economy, livability, and relocatability
from the extensive experimentation with factory-built structures then
taking place in the building industry. I would like to summarize for
you at this time our experience in this 'area.
The 'approved fiscal year 1972 MCP industrialized construction ef-
fort was developed into three facility packages: One for bachelor
housing (dormitories and officers' quarters); the second for open-
tions, administration, and training facilities; and the last, a single
warehouse item.
We have successfully 'awarded contracts for the dormitories and
officers' quarters, with the exception of two projects which involve
special problems associated with large composite dormitories and their
nonstandard central dining 'and administrative spaces. We have also
awarded the operations, administration, training, and warehouse faci-
lities packages.
As you are aware, the Air Force industrialized construction pro-
gram was a pilot program in the military services. A definitive evalua-
tion of the facilities will not be available until construction has been
completed and its day-to-day living environment and maintenance
data for a reasonable period of occupancy is in hand. Our experience
to date indicates that the fiscal year 1972 program will meet most of
our expectations. The basic three-dimension room modules for the
standard dormitories and officers' quarters will provide improved liv-
ing conditions within existing cost constraints. The relocatable feature
provides an extra measure of flexibility to satisfy adjustments in base
mission and unit relocations. After a suitable period of use, the Air
Force will determine whether additional construction in this mode
will be undertaken.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
The fiscal year 1974 MCP includes $3.7 million for air and $6.1 mil-
lion for water pollution abatement, a total of $9.8 million for these
purposes. Our request reflects our continuing revision and updating
of programs as more stringent air and water quality standards and laws
are promulgated at both State and Federal levels. We anticipate a con-
tinuing need in this area.
We are currently evaluating the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 to insure that future plans keep pace with the phased re-
quirements of this law. Our past activities in water pollution control,
under the full support and guidance of this committee, have placed
us in good position. However, the incremental implementation of rules
for the removal of specific materials from industrial waste will require
a continuous upgrading of our systems. The requirement for advanced
waste treatment in 1983 will require still additional facilities. The
cost of meeting these new requirements will be significant. I want to
assure you that the Air Force is addressing its need for well-ordered
plans and programs to assure the future quality of the environment.
FAMILY HOUSING
I would like now to discuss the Air Force family housing request
which is included in the Defense Family Housing Appropriation, to
be heard by this committee at a later date.
For the fiscal year 1974 Air Force family housing construction pro-
gram, we request $82 million. This amount will provide for the con-
struction of 1,800 new units at eight installations, 415 mobile trailer
spaces, improvement of existing facilities and essential support pro-
grams. We have elected to take a conservative approach with new
construction in light of the overall reductions experienced in recent
years in Air Force military strength. Also, increases in the authorized
basic allowances for quarters have served to bring a greater number
of community housing units within the adequacy standards of the
Department of Defense maximum allowable housing cost program.
While these factors are temporary, until total strength is stabilized
and rentals escalate to the new basic allowances for quarters, the
situation permits us to undertake a new survey of our total housing
requirement. Therefore, we will continue at a conservative level and
review our existing inventory for adequacy, both as to numbers and
quality of units. To date our reviews have indicated a need to initiate
major improvement and replacement of older units and those units
which were constructed to lesser standards of size, design and materi-
als. With the encouragement of this committee in prior years, we have
increased our request for the improvements program in fiscal year
1974 by approximately 100 percent, or $23 million. A year ago, or-
improvements request was just 'over $11 million.
The Air Force is especially grateful to this committee for t
improvements made possible through increased appropriations for
minor construction projects in fiscal year 1972 and fiscal year 1973. We
have been able to improve the liveability of some of our older and
smaller houses with such items as range hoods, privacy walls, insula-
tion, safety fences, garages, garbage disposals, additional storage
space, and smoke and fire detectors. The great majority of this work
was accomplished in units allocated to junior officers and enlisted
men. We have also accomplished meaningful improvements to mobile
home facilities. In fiscal year 1972, we accomplished 155 projects at
a cost in excess of $5 million; in fiscal year 1973 to date, we have
approved 150 projects in excess -of $4 million.
Our family housing program has benefited greatly through the
section 236 program administered by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), because it provides housing for our
young married families who are otherwise ineligible for on-base hous-
ing. It is an important adjunct to our All-Volunteer Force plan. A
moratorium was placed on this program effective January 5, 1973. At
that time, contract authority had been secured for all but 422 of the
3,500 units allocated to Air Force bases in fiscal year 1971 and fiscal
year 1972. The 1,164 units completed to date have been occupied and are
well-received. There is a firm requirement for the 422 units now under
the "freeze" and also the 4,100 units recommended by OSD for the
Air Force in the fiscal year 1973 program.
INDUSTRIALIZED FAMILY HOUSING
A year ago we advised the committee of our progress in acquiring
2,910 family housing units under the fiscal year 1972 program through
the use of industrialized housing techniques. We indicated great con-
cern with respect to the small number of contractor responses to the
request for proposals and that we were reserving judgment until pro-
-1
posals and bids had been received and evaluated. To make a long
story short, we did not get the interest and price competition we
anticipated. It is our reluctant conclusion that individual procurement,
either turnkey or plans and specifications would provide a more satis-
factory solution at this time.
UNIT COSTS
The Department of Defense has requested in the fiscal year 1974
Military Construction Authorization Act an increase in the average
unit cost for all units of family housing constructed in the United
States (other than Hawaii and Alaska) from $24,000 to $27,500.
The current statutory limitation was set in the fiscal year 1972
family housing program and has served through two fiscal years. The
existing limitation will no longer provide a house with the scope and
amenities authorized by the Congress due to the overall rise in prices
for labor and materials, due particularly to the severe shortages in
lumber and other residential building products. The Department of
Defense is also requesting adjustments in authorized maximum space
limitations to permit construction of a slightly larger house in accord
with the needs of an All-Volunteer Force and to obtain equality with
conventional standards. The Air Force is especially concerned because
1,767 of 1,800 units requested in the fiscal year 1974 program are four-
bedroom units, 1,765 for airmen and two for officers. Without an in-
crease in the average unit cost, we feel that it will not be possible to
place this program under contract without unacceptable degradation
in scope and appurtenances.
In view of these considerations,' the Air Force requests the com-
mittee's support for the larger unit cost.
RESERVE FORCES
Our request for the Reserve Forces totals $30 million and provides
for the Air National Guard, $20 million and for the Air Force Reserve,
$10 million.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
The appropriation requested for the Air National Guard military
construction program for fiscal year 1974 is larger by $4 million than
the request 1 year ago. This amount will provide $16 million for new
facilities and $2 million each for advance planning and minor
construction.
The major emphasis in the fiscal year 1974 MCP is to provide facility
support for the modernization of both flying and non-flying units as-
signed to each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. During the past few years, equipment modernization in the
Air National Guard has created a serious facility shortage. The short-
ages arise especially from the introduction of the more sophisticated
aircraft and electronic systems into the inventory, the need for new
operational, maintenance, and training support facilities, and provi-
sion for protection of the environment.
AIR FORCE RESERVE
Our military construction appropriation request for the Air Force
Reserve for fiscal year 1974 is $10 million-$9 million is for major
9
construction, $800,000 for planning and design, and $200,000 for minor
construction. This represents an increase of $3 million above the ap-
propriation for Air Force Reserve military construction for fiscal year
1973.
This committee has been concerned as to the adequacy and timeliness
of programs for the support of the Air Force Reserve Forces. We are
pleased to report that 14 of the 18 original fiscal year 1973 projects
are under contract and bids will be opened in the next few weeks for
the remaining projects. Of $9 million available for obligation in fiscal
year 1973, obligations are expected to total over $7 million by June 30,
1973.
The increased level of funding for the Air Force Reserve will pro-
vide the facilities necessary to support the newer aircraft systems as-
signed over the past few years.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. General Reilly has a
short statement and then we will be happy to provide any additional
information and answer any questions of the committee.
Mr. SIKEs. Thank you very much, Mr. Crockett.
General Reilly, we are pleased to see you again. You have an excel-
lent record in your dealings with this committee. It is a privilege to
work very closely with you and your associates. We are impressed by
the knowledge all of you have shown of the military construction pro-
gram. The committee wishes to compliment you on the manner in
which you and the Air Force carry out your military construction
program.
Will you proceed with your statement ?
STATEMENT OF DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee: It
is a pleasure to appear before this committee again, to present the Air
Force fiscal year 1974 military construction program.
The primary objective of this program is to support the force and
deployment goals presented to the Congress in the Air Force Chief
of Staff's posture statement. The bill now before your committee re-
quests appropriation for projects valued at $423,851,000 for the Air
Force, with major subdivisions as follows:
Regular military construction----------------------------- $311, 900, 000
Military family housing ------------------------------------ 81, 951, 000
Guard/reserve construction-------------------------------- 30, 000, 000
Total ------------------------------------------ 423, 851, 000
My comments today concern the $312 million of projects for the
regular military construction program since it is my understanding
that family housing and Reserve Forces construction will be the sub-
ject of separate hearings.
The major share of our request is for construction within the United
States with only about 10 percent for overseas construction. Again
this year's program does not include funds for construction in South-
east Asia.
LONG RANGE PLANNING
Our program has been keyed to long range planning. We have made
engineering and economic evaluations of each item to provide a pro-
gram of new construction balanced to support new and changing
missions, and to modernize existing facilities to adequately and eco-
nomically support our most pressing force and mission requirements
scheduled over the next 5 years. Consistent with that objective, our
request includes some $192 million for facilities modernization, or
about 60 percent of the total program as compared to some 40 percent
last year. Again, as in the past, we've looked in depth at our total
long range requirements, using professional engineering and economic
evaluation of each item in concert with required phasing of opera-
tional needs to arrive at a realistic and responsive program of facili-
ties support. Projects in the fiscal year 1974 request now before you
have undergone extensive review and represent our highest priority
requirements for funding.
COMPLEION OF REQUIREMENTS
Consistent with the committee's interest, line items requested in
this year's program will, for the most part, satisfy requirements for
the type of facility to be constructed at each location. Of the 185 line
items in the program, 157 will complete the respective facility require-
ment. For the remainder, phased construction is necessary to coincide
with equipment delivery or mission buildup, or the construction is
of such magnitude and cost as to make one-time programing im-
practical.
COST SAVINGS
Economic evaluations have played an important part in the selec-
tion process for each item in this program. Acceptable alternatives
have been reviewed for new construction to determine optimum
combinations of siting, materials, and construction methods. Deci-
sions to replace or modernize existing facilities have been based pri-
marily on economic considerations. Upon completion, the projects will
provide savings on the order of $56 million initial cost avoidance and
$8 million annually thereafter. A portion of these anticipated sav-
ings result from removal of aged and obsolete facilities from our
inventory. Most of these were constructed over 30 years ago with a
design life of 5 years using materials consistent with that economic
life. These facilities are now functionally inadequate and require con-
stant and expensive maintenance for continued use. We have dis-
posed of 5,300 obsolete facilities, containing over 14 million square
feet, in the last 3 years.
OBLIGATION OF FUNDS
We have further intensified our emphasis on early award of contracts
for approved construction. The objective has been to provide the Air
Force with these needed facilities as early las possible after the Con-
gress has appropriated funds.
I am pleased to report to this committee that the first of the fiscal
year 1973 military construction program projects went under contract
in January 1973, just 90 days after the appropriation law was signed.
We anticipate that the major portion of the program will be under
contract before the end of this fiscal year and the balance prior to the
end of the calendar year.
We now estimate that there will remain about $161 million in prior
year construction appropriations unobligated on 30 June 1973. This
represents a downward trend from the amount carried over into fiscal
year 1973, which was $220 million. Significant effort will be exerted to
continue this trend into the future.
In analyzing this carryover in light of our emphasis on early con-
tract award, we conclude that approximately $100 to $125 million
is the minimum feasible range of carryover to provide for effective
management of construction beyond the end of the fiscal year and
prior to the following year's appropriations.
PERSONNEL SUPPORT
Our concern for our people is expressed in the fact that more than
40 percent of the request now before you is in direct or related support
of personnel. We must continue to improve living conditions, on base
support and health care for our personnel. Toward that end, we have
included $125.1 million for these facilities. Of that amount, $39.7
million is for construction of 4,768 new dormitory spaces and 60 new
bachelor officer accommodations, and for improvement of 4,757 exist-
ing dormitory spaces. In addition, we are requesting $28.4 million for
on-base personnel support facilities such as commissaries, gymnasiums,
chapels, and open messes. Modernization and replacement of outmoded
and obsolete medical facilities are being given added emphasis in this
year's military construction program. We are requesting $37 million
to initiate a phased program for medical facilities that will insure
modern and efficient health care. Another very important personnel
related project in this program is the replacement of the Air Force
Accounting and Finance Center at a cost of approximately $20 million.
DEPOT PLANT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
As mentioned by the Secretary, projects to support our depot plant
modernization are an important part of the program before you. In-
cluded is another increment of depot plant modernization valued at
$31.4 million for construction of 16 projects at 5 air material areas.
COST ESTIMATES AND DESIGN STATUS
In preparing our program, we seek to refine our cost estimates on
individual projects to a careful projection of actual contract costs. This
entails as much advanced individual project engineering as practica-
ble, a sounding on inflationary trends and anticipated market condi-
tions, and an analysis of our most recent bidding experience. We have
taken this same approach for the last several years. Actual bidding
experience versus our estimates has shown it to be a sound approach.
Planning of the fiscal year 1974 program is well advanced and we
have a high degree of confidence in the estimates now before the com-
mittee.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
As noted in the Secretary's opening statement we have $9.8 million
set aside in this appropriation request for pollution abatement proj-
ects. With the excellent support of this committee we have already
received sufficient financing of our environmental program to enable
us to meet the initial pollution abatement goals established by Presi-
dent Nixon in 1970. However, as air and water quality standards grow
more stringent and as new environmental legislation is enacted, we
shall have to present you with additional fiscal requirements as we are
this year.
LAND USE PLANNING
Consistent with long range planning, discussed earlier, we are con-
tinuing to pursue the air installations compatible use zone concept
presented last year. At that time, we oriented the program toward three
bases involving 20,000 acres. This year, we are extending the concept
to 13 additional bases involving over 78,000 acres. Also, we are extend-
ing our efforts to a much broader application of land use planning.
This occurs as we determine the full impact of recent and proposed
legislation on environmental protection and land use policies.
When our air bases were sited years ago, we selected areas con-
siderably removed from urban development where noise levels and
accident potentials were not a problem to adjacent communities. We
were pretty much of an island to ourselves. Now, as urban develop-
ment has evolved in our direction, we must discard our insular think-
ing and consider our air base as part of a larger community. We must
plan on-base land usage and influence off-base land usage in a single
concept.
To this end, we have recently established a multidisciplined capa-
bility within the Air Force. We will continue to emphasize our air
installation compatible use zone requirements. This will carry us
further toward our objective of encouraging only that use of land
immediately adjacent to airfields that will be least sensitive to high
noise levels and accident potentials. In this way, we believe we can
preclude encroachment that will adversely affect our flying missions.
Our primary efforts in obtaining compatible land usage in the
vicinity of our air bases continues to be directed toward encouraging
local communities to enact suitable zoning ordinances. We have had
generally favorable reaction to this approach with last year's pro-
gram, and expect zoning ordinances to be enacted soon at the bases
listed in our fiscal year 1973 program.
Concurrently with our efforts on the compatible use zone concept,
we are devoting our energies to develop programs relating to com-
munity centers, installation renewal, residential development and
parks and open spaces. In this effort, we will be working with local,
State, and other Federal agencies concerned with total community
development.
In essence, our land use program is oriented toward optimum use
of the land in the area where our bases are located. Our perimeter
fences confine only the area under our direct control. Our planning
reaches out into the adjacent community.
PRIORITY OF PROJECTS
At the request of the committee we have provided the relative
priority for projects in this program. The determination of priorities
is an exceedingly difficult task since all projects are urgently needed
to provide facilities in support of Air Force missions and objectives.
13
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we wish to assure you and your com-
mittee that this program represents our very best construction pro-
posals within the confines of a limited budget. Projects for improved
bachelor housing, medical care facilities, and community support items
amount to more than a third of the total program. In addition, we are
continuing to give priority support for the operational mission. The
fiscal year 1974 construction program has been carefully designed to
meet new and changing missions while holding a tight reign on ex-
penditures. Capital investments are proposed only for those installa-
tions programed to remain in the inventory for the foreseeable future.
Attached to the printed copies of my statement are narrative descrip-
tions of the entire program, broken out by category of facilities, by
command totals, and by mission elements supported.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear once again
before this committee. If there are any questions about our program,
we will be pleased to provide additional information.
[Attachments to statement follow :]
TABLE I.-Department of the Air Force fiscal year 1974 military construction
appropriation program for the active forces
Section 301-Command
Inside the United States: Thousands
Aerospace defense command-$-------------------------------- $8, 794
Air Force communications service------------------------------- 3, 963
Air Force logistics command- ------ -------------------- 60, 934
Air Force systems command---------------------------------9, 062
Air training command-------------------------- -------- 56, 282
Air university -------------------------------------------- 5, 462
Alaskan air command-------------------------------------- 8, 658
Headquarters command, USAF-----------------------------18, 435
Military airlift command----------------------------------12, 416
Pacific air forces-----------------------------------------7, 331
Strategic air command---- -------------------------------25, 738
Tactical air command--- ---------------------------------17, 703
U.S. Air Force Academy------------------------------------- 645
Pollution abatement -------------------------------9, 070
Air installation compatible use zones--------------------------2, 000
Total inside the United States--------------------------- 246, 493
Outside the United States :
Aerospace defense command----------- -------------- 1, 355
Pacific Air Forces-- ------------------------------------11, 788
U.S. Air Forces in Europe ---------------------------------15, 925
U.S. Air Forces southern command 1----------------------------, 038
U.S. Air Force security service--------------------------------- 221
Pollution abatement ----------------------------------------- 750
Worldwide communications.---------------------------------- 330
Total outside the United States--------------------------- 31, 407
Classified (section 302) : Radar support facility-various worldwide__- 1, 000
Support:
Planning and design --------------------------------------18, 000
Minor construction ---------------------------------------- 15, 000
Total support ------------------------------------------ 33. 000
Total appropriation program ._.----------------------------- 311, 900
14
TABLE II.-DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION
PROGRAM-ACTIVE FORCES-SUMMARY BY PROGRAM ELEMENT
Amount Percent of
(millions) total
Strategic Forces......------------------------------------------------------- $44.8 14.4
General purpose Forces......................-------------------------------------------------- 38.3 12.3
Intelligence and communications ..-------------------------------------------- 32.1 10.3
Airlift and Sealift---------------------------....---------------------------- 14.1 4.5
Research and development .......... .........------------------------------------------------ 16.6 5.3
Central supply and maintenance-------....-----.....------...--...........------------------------- 36.8 11.8
Training, medical and other general personnel activities-----........-------------........----------- 71.6 22.9
Administration and associated activities....................... ---------------------------------------- 57.6 18.5
Total.... ............--------------------------------------------------------- 311.9 100.0
TABLE III.-DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION
PROGRAM-ACTIVE FORCES-PROGRAM BY CONSTRUCTION CATEGORIES
Amount Percent of
(millions) total
Operational................................................---------------------------------------------------------- $52.6 16.9
Training------------......................................................------------------------------------------------- 7.8 2.5
Maintenance..................---------------------------------------------------------- 36.9 11.8
Research, development and test.................................................---------------------------------------------... 10. 3.2
Supply ..................................------------------------------------------------------------- 11.7 3.
Hospital and medical...... ---------------------------------------------------- 36.7 11.8
Administration..........................---------------------------------....---.........................-------------------- 31.2 10.0
Bachelor housing ------------------------------------------------------ 39.7 12.7
Community ---------------------------------------------------------- 28.4 9.1
Utilities----------------................................................---------------------------------------------.. 21.9 7.0
Real Estate ----------------------------------------------------------- 2.0 0.6
Support---.------------------------------------------------------------- 33.0 10.6
Total --------------------------------------------------------- 311.9 100.0
NARRATIVE CATEGORY ANALYSIS
Operational faoilities-$52.6 million
This category represents 16.9 percent of the appropriation request. It contains
such essential items as airfield pavements, aircraft fueling support facilities,
flight operations buildings, communications facilities, and navigational aids.
Important items in this category are the second increment of the technical intel-
ligence operations facility for $11 million at Wright-Patterson AFB ; special air-
craft support facilities at Andrews AFB for $13.5 million; a station composite
support facility at Cape Newenham AFB, Alaska, for $5.4 million; and an air-
freight terminal complex at Hickman AFB for $4.5 million.
Training facilities--$7.8 million
Training facilities included in this construction program cover a range of
Air Force training activities such as training for pilots, aircrews, and base
maintenance personnel. Major projects are: flight simulator training facility at
Reese AFB, Tex., for $2.8 million, a base maintenance training facility at Shep-
pard AFB, Tex., for $2.8 million; and a flight simulator training facility at Luke
AFB, Ariz., for $.9 million.
Maintenance facilities--$86.9 million
The maintenance category represents 11.8 percent of our request. It contains
facilities to support aircraft and engine maintenance activities, special purpose
shops, as well as shops to support maintenance of base facilities. Also included in
this category are 10 projects totaling $22 million for modernization of Air Force
Logistics Command's depot facilities. This category also provides various main-
tenance and storage facilities for short-range attack missiles at two locations
for $1 million.
Research, development, test, and evaluation-$10.0 million
A vigorous R. & D. program is an investment in our future security. This seg-
ment of our construction request provides the buildings, laboratories ,and special-
ized test structures that are required in the conduct of a quality R. & D. pro-
gram. An aircraft fuels and lubricants laboratory for $4.9 million; alteration
of an aircraft engine components research facility for $1.9 million; and a minor
alteration and expansion of the human impact lab are major projects located at
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Other major projects are a weapons guidance test
facility at Holloman AFB for $0.9 million and alteration of a rocket propulsion
research laboratory at Edwards AFB for $0.9 million.
Supply facoilities--$11.7 million
The major portion of this category is for 2 projects totaling $5.9 million for
modernizing Air Force Logistics Command depot facilities.
Other supply facilities include ammunition storage facilities at two PACAF
locations, diesel fuel storage for remote'sites in Alaska, a ballistic missile proc-
essing facility at Hill AFB, Utah, for $3.0 million and a base supply facility at
Reese AFB, Tex., for $1.0 million.
Medical facilities-$ 6.7 million
This year's program is directed toward expansion and alteration and replace-
ment of hospital facilities to provide proper clinical and dental care. Composite
medical facility projects are included for: Richards-Gebaur AFB, Mo., at $3.8
million; Tinker AFB, Okla., at $3.9 million; Maxwell AFB, Ala., at $4.9 million;
Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyo., at $5.8 million; Laughlin AFB, Tex., at $4.6 mil-
lion; and Upper Heyford RAF Station, United Kingdom, at $5.5 million. Also in-
cluded are two aeromedical staging facilities; one at Scott AFB, Ill., for $2.0 mil-
lion and the other at Andrews AFB, Md., for $1.7 million. A dispensary at Lack-
land AFB, Tex., for $0.5 million at Keesler AFB, Miss., for $1.6 million,
Barksdale AFB, La., for $1.2 million, and Shaw AFB, S.C. for $1.1 million, are
also included in the medical program.
Administrative faoilities-$81.2 million
The most significant item in this category is the construction of an Air Force
accounting and finance center at Lowry AFB, Colo., for $20.4 million.
In our continuing objective to House management and administrative person-
nel in facilities that will enable them to achieve maximum productivity, we are
requesting modern efficient base personnel offices at Nellis AFB, Nev., for $1.9
and at Mather AFB, Calif., for $1.7 million.
Other significant administrative facilities included in this category are: An
armament development test center headquarters facility at Eglin AFB, Fla., for $4
million and a data-processing facility at Randolph AFB, Tex., for $1.5 million.
Community facilities--$28.4 million
Community facilities are requested in order to provide for the welfare and
morale of our military personnel and dependents, both in the United States and
overseas. This category includes projects for religious activities, commissioned,
noncommissioned officers' and airmen open messes, a base post office, and recrea-
tional facilities. It also includes commissaries in the amount of $7.4 million at
three locations in the United States where existing facilities are grossly inade-
quate and three dependent schools at overseas locations for $7.4 million.
Bachelor housing-$39.7 million
The provision of suitable living quarters for our bachelor enlisted and officer
personnel is viewed as a priority objective by the Air Force. This year $39.7
million, or 12.7 percent of our request, is for the construction of 4,768 new dormi-
tory spaces at a cost of $25.7 mllion, and 60 new officers' quarters at a cost of
$1.2 million. We are modernizing 4,757 existing dormitory spaces for $11.3 mil-
lion. Included in this program are a student housing composite building at one of
our major technical training centers, Keesler AFB, Miss., for $5.1 million and a
composite recruit training and housing facility at Lackland AFB, Tex., for $5.1
million, each housing 1,000 men. Buildings of these types provided in earlier
programs have proven to be extremely effective. This is a continuation of a
phased program to replace the old World War II barracks with modern composite
structures.
This category of projects also includes air-conditioning for airmen dining halls
at Lackland AFB, Tex., for $1 million, and a new dining hall for airmen at Webb
AFB, Tex., for $0.6 million.
Utilities--$21.9 million
Our utility package includes pollution abatement projects as well as projects
to install the necessary utility support for existing and programed construction.
This year's increment of projects for air pollution abatement is $3.7 million; and
for water pollution abatement is $6.1 million.
20-632 0 - 73 - 2
Real estate-$2 million
The only item in this category is the $2 million requested for acquisition of
restrictive easements to protect our bases from encroachment by incompatible
land use.
Support--$3S million
The support portion of our request amounts to 10.6 percent of the program and
consists of $18 million for planning and design, and $15 million for minor con-
struction projects.
LONG-RANGE PROGRAM
Mr. SIKEs. These have both been useful statements. They are well
prepared and contain information helpful to the committee.
SUCCESS IN AWARDING PRIOR PROGRAMS
I am impressed by your statement, General Reilly, that the first of
the military construction projects went under contract just 90 days
after the appropriation law was signed. You say also that the major
portion of the program will be under contract before the end of the
fiscal year. You have done very well, but what were the principal dif-
ficulties you encountered? Are you getting enough bidders? Is there
a spirited competition ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. We have had excellent success with both
1972 and 1973 programs. I think we are averaging something like
six bidders per project.
Mr. SIKEs. Are the bids well within the estimate range ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. I think as of the middle of this month we
had something like 42 or 43 percent of our fiscal 1973 program under
contract, and our costs, based on bids, were running about 96 percent
of the programed amount, which we feel is a very good cost.
Mr. SIKES. Has the inflationary trend exceeded your estimate? Are
you within the ball park in your estimate of inflation?
General REILLY. I think the cost estimating system we have now,
where we are permitted to project our costs to the time of actual con-
tract award, has been taking care of the inflationary trend.
Mr. SIKEs. Are you overestimating the amount of inflation?
General REILLY. No, sir, I don't think we are. For this particular pro-
gram before the committee we are projecting about an 8 percent in-
crease from January 1973 until the spring of 1974. That is roughly
61/2 percent during 1973 and a portion of the following year. That is
somewhat less than what we have been projecting in the past.
AIR FORCE PROGRAM LEVEL
Mr. SIKEs. Your program is the smallest of the three services. Does
that mean that the Air Force, being a newer service, has a higher per-
centage of modern facilities and less requirement for replacement and
modernization ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, I think the larger programs of the
Army and the Navy reflect their high needs for modernization, espe-
cially in the troop housing areas.
I think the Army alone has approximately $400 million in the 1974
program just for troop housing. But the level of our program is care-
fully weighed within the context of the overall Air Force budget, and
I think with the level of modernization that we have identified for
1974 of some $192 million that we can make up some lost ground.
Mr. SIKEs. The Air Force has been a new, young, and competitive
force and has never hesitated to ask for what it wanted. Someone
must have told you you don't get poor from asking. But the size of
your program is smaller than that of the other services, and even
though we are spending what some would call a considerable amount
of money on construction, I think that all of us are fully cognizant of
the fact that there are many bases, including Air Force bases, which
still are predominantly of World War II temporary construction. We
must be getting close to the end of the line for getting any satis-
factory utilization out of a great many of those facilities. And they
are not worth the maintenance money we are putting in them.
General REILLY. Yes.
FACILITIES DEFICIT
Mr. SIXEs. Last year you estimated the deficit for the regular Air
Force as $5.9 million. Can you tell us more precisely where you stand
now with respect to the total facilities deficit ?
Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir. Out of the total Department of Defense
deficit that has been reported at $23.2 billion, the Air Force portion is
$6.8 billion, which is roughly a billion more than last reported. The
increase results primarily from a relook at our modernization and re-
placement requirements. It supports the observation you have made
that many older structures exist on our bases and need improvement.
However, looking ahead to future years, the new figure also contains
a substantial figure for cost escalation.
Mr. SIKEs. I would like to have for the record a chart showing cur-
rent deficit by category of facility, what you expect to be able to ac-
complish in fiscal years 1974 through 1978, and what your remaining
deficit is expected to be at the end of that period.
Mr. CROCKETT. All right, sir.
[The information follows :1
CHART OF CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEFICITS BY CATEGORY
[In millions of dollars]
Proposed
MCP's,
fiscal years Remaining
Category Deficiency 1974-78 deficiency
Operational------------------------------------------------- 815 239 576
Training...............................................---------------------------------------------------.. 164 50 114
Maintenance--.............................----------------------------------------------. 714 178 536
R.D.T. & E...............................................-------------------------------------------------- 779 85 694
Supply .....---------------------------------------------------- 495 120 375
Medical- 306 211 95
Administrative----------------------------------------------- 673 83 590
Bachelor housing---------------------------------------------- 714 228 486
Community ----------------------------------------------- 1,012 147 865
Utilities. ---------------------------------------------------- 628 105 523
Real estate--------------------------------------------------- 67 3 64
Support---------------------------------------------------- 500 180 320
Total................------------------------------------------------ 6,867 1,629 5,238
I A portion of this deficiency would be alleviated by use of nonappropriated funds.
Mr. SIKES. From the chart provided last year, it appeared that you
had sizable deficits in all areas except real estate, and particularly in
operation, maintenance, R.D.T. & E., supply, administrative, bachelor
housing, and community support facilities, and in utilities. Is this
still the case ?
Mr. CROCOKETT. Yes, sir; that is still essentially the case. We have
sizable deficiencies in all categories.
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS
Mr. SIKES. Where are you proposing to put major emphasis over
the next 5 years?
Mr. CROCxErr. We will place major emphasis in the following cate-
gories, in this order: (1) operational facilities-projects will sup-
port both continuing missions and new missions; (2) medical facili-
ties-the Department of Defense has recognized the need for major
modernization and replacement of medical facilities; (3) bachelor
housing and other on-base community support facilities to provide
essential support of our military personnel and their families; (4)
maintenance and supply facilities-we will continue the logistical
depot modernization program; and, finally, (5) replacement and up-
grading of utility systems.
As one who has spent many years charged with responsibility for the
maintenance and repair of our utility systems, I know that there is
a large and urgent requirement to upgrade our underground utilities
systems in future years. It is often hard to find these problems until
they break out. We have included important projects in this program
and we will continue to do so in future years.
BACHELOR HOUSING DEFICIT
Mr. SIKEs. What is the total deficit in bachelor housing?
General REILLY. About 43,000 spaces, Mr. Chairman, a great ma-
jority (35,000 spaces) of that being for bachelor airmen.
Mr. SIKES. At the rate that you are going now in modernization and
replacement facilities, how long will you need to overcome that deficit?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, we are moving ahead with bachelor
enlisted housing at something over 4,000 units a year. The actual deficit
in bachelor enlisted housing is something over 35,000. So we are 7 or
8 years away.
Mr. SIKES. You are not using the open bay type housing anywhere,
are you?
General REILLY. Except for recruits at Lackland Air Force Base
and some overseas locations. For the most part, we have room-con-
figured accommodations.
HOSPITAL MODERNIZATION
Mr. SIRES. What is the general picture on hospital facilities, and at
how many major bases are you still using the World War II canton-
ment type hospitals ?
Colonel BAIRD. We have about 14 bases remaining with about 17
facilities.
Mr. SIKs. The cantonment type hospital is an expensive hospital
to maintain. It is inefficient in its operation. Over what period of
time do you propose to phase out all of that type of hospital?
Colonel BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to being able to
phase it out in about a 5- or 6-year period.
Mr. SIKES. What level of medical facilities programing do you
anticipate in the years immediately ahead ?
Colonel BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, we anticipate about a $42 million
program per year for the next 5 years. That is exclusive of the test
bed hospital, the new generation military hospital, which currently
is estimated to cost about $109.
HOSPITAL WORKLOAD
Mr. SixES. What has been your experience with hospital workload
for inpatients and outpatients in recent years ?
Colonel BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, we have noted a moderate reduction
in our inpatient workload and a near stabilization of our outpatient
workload in the past few years.
Mr. SIKES. You attribute that to what ?
Colonel BAIRD. The primary reason is the shift in emphasis on
medical care, much as they are experiencing in the civilian commu-
nity, sir.
MEDICAL SUPPORT FOR RETIRED PERSONNEL-CHAMPUS VERSUS MILITARY
HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SrKEs. How much in the way of new hospital facilities are you
programing for retired personnel ?
Colonel BAIRD. We are programing our space for retired in our
facilities based on Department of Defense guidelines which say we
are authorized to add 5 percent additional space in nonteaching hos-
pitals and 10 percent additional space in teaching hospitals. The
purpose is to provide teaching experience for our training program.
Mr. SIKES. Do you anticipate greater or less reliance on CHAMPUS
in the years immediately ahead ?
Colonel BAIRD. We anticipate in the near future that we will have
greater reliance on CHAMPUS to a small degree. Later when we
begin to see the benefits of our modernization program and the accel-
eration we are getting we expect CHAMPUS will drop.
TRISERVICE MEDICAL REGIONALIZATION
Mr. SIKES. What has been the effect of the triservice medical re-
gionalization program upon the Air Force's requirements for special-
ists and its need for additional facilities?
General REILLY. The triservice medical regionalization program,
which has been evolving for slightly less than 1 year, has had a demon-
strable, but not yet readily quantifiable effect on Air Force require-
ments for medical specialists and for new facilities. The regionaliza-
tion program has opened up an active dialog between supervisory
medical personnel within each region so that the specialists and exist-
ing facilities are maximizing their delivery of health care. For exam-
ple, in the Virginia tidewater region, we have developed a program
~llbrPI~*_I~l_------- -
to support Air Force personnel and their families at remote radar sites
on the Virginia capes through the use of a Navy mobile optometry van.
This has eliminated the need for these patients to travel back to
Langley Air Force Base for care, and has increased the availability of
optometric care for beneficiaries at USAF Hospital Langley. The
commanders of our medical, centers at Lackland and Travis Air Force
Bases also report greater utilization of their specialists and unique
facilities by other service patients since the regionalization program
began.
We are developing our medical construction program with regional-
ization as an element in our planning. The health facility projects in
this request and future requests are all validated by the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense-Health and Environment-within
the context of their consistency with regional patterns of health care
delivery and total triservice regional requirements.
Mr. SIKES. Provide for the record the past, present, and projected
workload for each of the Air Force's major hospitals.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if on item 25 we could have a
breakdown as between beds and out-patients?
Mr. SIKEs. Yes.
General REILLY. Sir, the workload data for the Air Force's major
hospitals, which will be provided, is stated as bed related and as out-
patient workloads. Bed workloads are measured as average daily
patient loads, and outpatient workloads are measured as outpatient
visits per year.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force has six area medical centers, each with over 300 beds, which
can be defined as major hospitals. The workload statistics for these major hos-
pitals follow :
FISCAL YEAR 1972
Outpatient
Area medical center ADPL I visits X-ray Lab Prescriptions
Andrews AFB, Md. (USAFMC Malcolm Grow)_ 253 436, 200 482,932 1,030,828 518, 751
Keesler AFB, Miss. (USAFMC Keesler).._. 329 397, 320 236,500 700,821 433,203
Lackland AFB, Tex. (USAFMC Wilford Hall).. 823 870,860 541,365 2,286,410 1, 062,778
Scott AFB, Ill. (USAFMC Scott) _ _ 192 229,935 191,042 390, 724 171,108
Travis AFB, Calif. (USAFMC David Grant).... 269 357,002 232,128 961,063 279,788
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (USAFMC
Wri ght-Patterson)._.. .---------------- - 295 381,680 213,999 707, 146 343, 321
ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1973
Andrews AFB, Md.(USAFMC Malcolm Grow)_ 246 449, 921 487, 526 1,229,343 580,396
Keesler AFB, Miss. (USAFMC Keesler)._ 319 422,686 250,475 782,054 481,437
Lackland AFB, Tex. (USAFMC Wilford Hall).. 780 871,500 581,323 2,764,721 956,178
Scott AFB, Ill. (USAFMC Scott) ........ 196 233,350 168, 346 463, 201 180,884
Travis AFB, Calif. (USAFMC David Grant) 285 397,000 260,158 1,059,735 302,199
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (USAFMC
Wright-Patterson) --..-..... .......... 270 354, 065 204, 146 731,792 382, 016
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR 1974
Andrews AFB, Md. (USAFMC Malcolm Grow)_ 263 454,000 509, 399 1,278,339 595,378
Keesler AFB, Miss. (USAFMC Keesler) -.... 315 423,000 249,643 815,000 490,000
Lackland AFB, Tex. (USAFMC Wilford Hall)__ 785 875,000 620,000 3,100, 000 965, 423
Scott AFB, III. (USAFMC Scott)... 200 237,000 171,252 520,000 190,000
Travis AFB, Calif. (USAFMC David Grant) ... 300 410,000 293,338 1,122,606 323,000
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (USAFMC
Wright-Patterson)----...................... 270 365,000 208,606 744,237 424,306
I Average daily patient load.
_ _~
BACHELOR PERSONNEL USE OF OFF-BASE SUPPORT
Mr. SIKEs. What is the present policy on optional residency off-base
for the Air Force's bachelor officers and enlisted personnel?
General REILLY. The Air Force would like to see a policy whereby
all E-4's and above and officers could reside off-base with basic allow-
ance for quarters at their option. However, by law we can only extend
that choice to 0-4's, that is major and above.
Mr. SIKEs. How has your present policy and the sizable increases in
the pay of enlisted personnel and lower rank officers affected your
bachelor housing deficit ?
BACHELOR HOUSING DEFICIT
General REILLY. It has been reduced, Mr. Chairman. We were indi-
cating last year a 72,000-space deficiency for airmen and a 14,000-space
deficiency for officers. This year it is down to 35,000 'and 8,000 respec-
tively.
Mr. SIKEs. In the event that OSD allowed you greater flexibility
with regard to optional off-base living, would it further reduce your
bachelor housing deficit ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, I think it would.
Mr. SHEs. Do you have an estimate of that effect ?
General REILLY. NO, sir, I don't. I think eventually it would reach
the point to where our future construction requirement would only
be for students 'and transient duty personnel except in overseas and
remote locations.
Mr. TALCOTT. The bachelor housing deficit has been reduced pri-
marily because of a decrease in the number of Air Force personnel
rather than an increase in the number of housing units. Isn't that
true?
General REILLY. That has been a factor, yes.
MODERNIZATION OF BACHELOR QUARTERS
Mr. TALCOTT. We haven't made as much progress toward building
new units or modernizing the old units as I think we ought to. I would
like to commend the services on their modernization programs. We
have literally billions of dollars of permanent facilities on hand. If
we can modernize these we should save considerable amounts of money
as compared to going out and building new units. We have this huge
inventory of facilities already available to us, probably located in the
right places but needing modernization. I am glad to see you are
putting some emphasis there.
General REILLY. I think the figures are correct. We have about 77,000
that we feel are upgradable. They are substandard in some way now
but can be made adequate economically. This carries with it a cost of
something over $200 million to do all of that. I certainly agree with
you.
Mr. TALCOTT. Do you ever talk with the Housing and Urban Devel-
opment and private agencies about their modernization programs ? I
think they and other people are beginning to appreciate the huge in-
ventories of housing in many downtown areas, places that have been
vacated and have become dilapidated. With modernization you can
~- ---- ,^-
make them much more useful, and usually they are in a better location
than some of the new projects. The new developments are further
away from main facilities and further away from work. There is great
potential in modernization.
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
PLANNED PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
Mr. SIKES. What number of military personnel is the Air Force
planning for end-fiscal year 1974 ?
General REILLY. The fiscal year 1974 military end strength pro-
jected in the fiscal year 1974 President's budget is 666,357.
Mr. SIKEs. What is the long-range personnel strength which the Air
Force is currently planning? Upon what figure is your construction
program based ?
General REILLY. The long-range personnel strength which the Air
Force is currently planning is approximately the level projected for
end-fiscal year 1974: 666,357.
The fiscal year 1974 military construction program is based on end
strength projections for each individual base. However, end strength
is just one of the criteria used for determining requirements. Some
other criteria are (a) condition and availability of existing facilities,
(b) health, safety, and environmental factors, and (c) changing mis-
sion requirements and authorized force levels.
Mr. SIKES. Provide for the record the long-range strength in terms
of squadrons, et cetera, upon which your fiscal year 1974 construction
program is based. Indicate any areas in which your planning numbers
do not coincide with the Department of Defense's approved 5-year
plan.
[The information follows:]
LONG-RANGE STRENGTH BREAKOUT BY ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS
(The long term active force structure upon which the fiscal 1974 construction
program is based follows. This program coincides with the approved Depart-
ment of Defense program.)
Type:
Strategic Forces : squadrons
Bomber
Tanker
Reconnaissance
Interceptor
Missile
Airborne warning and control
General-purpose forces :
Tactical fighter.
Other attack .........
Reconnaissance
Tactical -airlift.
Aeromedical airlift.
Special operations .............
Tactical air control systems--....
Tactical drone
Airborne command post --------------...............
Intelligence and communications:
Cryptological activities-----..------------------------[Classified infor-
Technical sensor collection------------------------- mation deleted.]
Mapping and charting-- -
Weather ----------------------------------------
Rescue
Airborne command post----------------------------
(Not assigned in squadron units. 129 aircraft assigned to
activity.)
Airlift (industrially funded) :
Aeromedical airlift---------------------------------
Strategic 'airlift--------------------------------
Military airlift (special mission) ------------------
MODERNIZATION
Mr. SIKES. Your fiscal year 1974 request contains a much greater
amount for modernization than has been true in past years. Do you
feel that at the rate of $192 million, which you hope to achieve this
year, you will be staying even, or catching up, or will you still be fall-
mg behind ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, if we have roughly $200 million
a year we will catch up. We still have a very large deficit.
Mr. SIKEs. When would you catch up ?
General REILLY. It would take many years even at that rate. Our
total modernization requirement is something over $3 billion. But the
$192 million represents about an $80 million increase over our pro-
gram of last year.
FAMILY HOUSING DEFICIT
Mr. SIKEs. What is the estimated current deficit of family housing
units?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, our programable deficit, the deficit
by which we program new housing, is about 20,000 family housing
units.
Mr. SIRES. What do these units equate to in terms of dollars ?
General REILLY. At roughly $30,000 per unit, it will take about $600
million to construct all of them.
Mr. SIRES. At the current rate when would you achieve that?
General REILLY. At our rate now, which is running well under $100
million a year, we have a long way to go.
TRAILER SPACES
Mr. SIRES. On the subject of trailers, we had a flurry of gusty winds
at many places over the weekend, and the press called them all torna-
does. At least insofar as Florida is concerned there were very few
tornadoes, if there were tornadoes at all. I think they were just very
strong gusty winds. But they turned over some trailers. That is the
extent of the damage. No people were killed. Most of them are not tied
down and many are of very flimsy construction, generally made with-
out the benefit of building codes. Is it your policy on trailer parks to
insure the maximum protection possible for the occupants? Do you
require that trailers be tied down ? Do you require any code of inspec-
tion on the quality of the trailer ? I recall there was a serious tornado
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~EB ~ ~ ( ~Bi~-_- -----'3~
some 8 or 10 years ago in the Fort Walton Beach area, with damage
primarily to trailers. Quite a few trailers were bounced around in
an actual tornado.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. SIXES. What do you do to prevent that, anything ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. About 2 years ago we instituted a policy where they
have to apply tiedowns to the trailers. They are required to either
hook them up with cables or in some kind of way tie the trailers under-
neath.
You remember the hurricane at Keesler 3 years ago. We lost only
one trailer because one family was away and didn't get the trailer
tied down.
Mr. TALCOTT. I think we should have in the record what the record
of the military services is insofar as loss of trailers. I understand
they have a policy that is rather superior to most cities, and that
your record is outstanding.
Mr. DAVIS. Are you talking about onsite trailers or offsite trailers ?
Mr. SIKES. I doubt you would have any control over offsite trailers.
You are talking about onsite trailers ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
[The information follows:]
Mr. JOHNSTON. As previously stated, the Air Force has been most fortunate
insofar as loss of mobile homes on our bases is concerned. Our bases have not
experienced serious weather problems except in the South in recent years. Of
some 51 mobile homes on Keesler Air Force Base, during the recent hurricane,
only one was seriously damaged. In our instructions to our bases we address
tiedown requirements and have the bases enforce compliance with the local
insurance company regulations in order that our mobile homeowners can obtain
insurance.
Mr. SIKES. The ones I had reference to, when speaking of the tor-
nado some years ago, were offsite trailers. Of course, you cannot exer-
cise control over those which are not on Air Force property.
Mr. LONG. Will the chairman yield ?
Mr. SIKES. Yes.
Mr. LONG. Of your trailers, what percentage are onsite and what
percentage offsite ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have about 4,000 trailer spaces on bases through-
out the United States.
Mr. LONG. How many are offbase ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I would say double that amount off bases.
Mr. SIKES. It is probably more than that.
Mr. LONG. Is it more than that?
Mr. SIKES. I would think it would be much more than double, be-
cause trailers are a popular thing with military personnel.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The last count we had, I think was around 11,000
total, which included some Government-owned trailers. We have about
1,000 Government-owned trailers in the States and about 600 or 700
overseas. I would say overall it is about 11,000.
Mr. LONG. I am wondering why it isn't the other way around ? That
would seem to me to be one way in which the military could add some-
thing important to the trailer situation, by providing a site. That is
beyond doubt the biggest headache military personnel have run into
with trailers, in my experience. People are held virtually in peonage
to the owner of the sites. If they bat an eye, if they break any of a
thousand petty rules, they are evicted. Once they are off the site, they
can't get relocated. There is practically a reign of terror going on in
some Maryland trailer parks because of the shortage of trailer sites.
People will sell trailers with the understanding the buyer will move
into the seller's park. Once the buyer is on that site, he may not have
any protection, and the first thing you know, the site is taken out from
under him because they have sold another trailer to put in his place.
I don't know quantitatively how big this thing is, but it is big enough
to make people nervous and raise some real questions.
What is your system of dealing with the security that people have
for their trailers on offbase locations, and why aren't a large proportion
put on bases? One thing you have is plenty of land.
Mr. JOHNSTON. One problem we have is the OSD policy. We can
only program onbase trailers when the local community can't accom-
modate them. Every year when we take the family housing survey we
conduct a survey of the people that live onbase and offbase in trailers.
If they say the trailer space is adequate offbase, we cannot build a re-
placement for it onbase.
Mr. LONG. I think this policy may undergo change, because in the
area I am talking about, nobody wants trailers except the people who
run the trailer camps. In Harford County, we have a 25-acre minimum
on which one can put a trailer, with the exception of a few areas that
are zoned for trailer parks. There is a tremendous outcry against
trailers everywhere. I expect this is going on all over the United States.
So I would think this is one place you could help, by putting trailers
on the bases, and getting away from this community problem, and the
problem from the standpoint of the trailer occupant.
Mr. JOHNSTON. It has been only the last 4 years we have been
able to really program trailer space. During the late sixties, we weren't
allowed to program trailer spaces. So we have put some emphasis
on trailer spaces and have about $2 million a year for trailer spaces
in our recent programs.
Mr. SiKEs. I would say the program is still very small in comparison
to the total requirement for housing. Would you care, Mr. Crockett,
to discuss Air Force policy on making trailer space available for air-
men who have trailers, or on providing Government trailers ? What is
your policy; what is your planning; what do you propose to do in
the future; what is the thinking in back of it ?
Mr. CROCKET . Our provision of trailer spaces on base has simply
been a recognition that a portion of Air Force people, like some por-
tion of the general population in the United States, wants to live in
trailers. That is their life style. We have recognized that as one facet
of the total spectrum of Air Force housing desires, and that is the
reason for programing trailer spaces.
Mr. SIKEs. But I think the number you are programing is small.
Don't you think so?
Mr. CROCKETT. I certainly feel we could increase it, put more empha-
sis on it.
Mr. SIKES. You could, yes. But should you ? I am not sure I am get-
ting the Air Force's feelings on this. Do you think it is a good thing
or bad thing for famiiles to live in trailers?
Mr. CROCKETT. Our policy is to provide housing for people, not
trailers. The provision of trailer spaces is in recognition that there
--------~-
are some people who will not be eligible for housing under the current
ground rules and some people who though eligible prefer to live in
mobile homes and who then will be better served by having a place
to put their trailers. We have not changed our policy with regard to
providing permanent housing for people. We do not believe that mo-
bile homes provide housing which meet adequate standards for perma-
nent housing under DOD regulations.
General REILLY. It has been our policy not to force anyone to live
in a trailer who doesn't want to. If he does desire to live in a trailer,
our policy is to try to provide onbase space where they can park their
trailer at reasonable costs, and be comfortable.
I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, we are not moving fast enough. I
think our most recent surveys show a deficit of between 4 and 5,000
spaces.
Mr. SIKEs. What is your policy in areas where a substantial number
of trailer courts are available in reasonable proximity to the base? Do
you make trailer space available on base, or do you require those uni-
formed personnel who have trailers to use the space in the community ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, in our survey we ask the people who
own trailers to state the adequacy of the off-base trailer rental space,
and as long as they certify they are happy and pleased with the off-
base facilities, then we don't count that as a deficit. Where they say the
cost is too high, or the distance they must drive is too far, then that
is a deficit and we would like to provide them a space on base.
Mr. SIKES. Are you providing any trailers in this year's program?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, we have 415 spaces.
Mr. SIKEs. Are those spaces or trailers ?
General REILLY. Those are spaces.
Mr. SIKES. Air Force-wide that isn't very many. I am not arguing
you should have more, but it does appear that the number is quite low
in comparison with the number of uniformed personnel who have
trailers.
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. TALCOTT. Can we get a statement of how many vacant trailer
spaces we have ? I think we should not be calling them trailers either.
You are going to have people very angry because these are really
mobile homes.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. TALCO'rr. Could we get a statement of how many vacant spaces
there are?
General REILLY. On our bases ?
Mr. TALCOrr. Yes.
General REILLY. We can provide that.
[The information follows:]
STATEMENT ON NUMBER OF VACANT MOBILE HOME SPACES ON BASES
Based upon our latest report, the Air Force has an occupancy rate of 89 per-
ent for 4,154 on-base spaces. This low occupancy rate results from vacancies at
bases where spaces are being modernized and at a few locations where old spaces
are being phased out or replaced. Normally, bases with mobile home spaces main-
tain an occupancy rate of 98 to 100 percent. We have 457 vacant spaces at this
time.
Mr. TALcorr. There are a lot of factors involved here. I think we
should be careful not to simplify too much. The economics of mobile
homes are quite different from those of conventional homes. They pre-
sent some special social problems. When we get too many concentrated
in one place we have to develop other support facilities around them,
and lifestyles change. We are moving, hopefully, toward more stable
assignments for military people, longer tours of duty. The mobile
homes are not quite so attractive and depreciation on them is very
rapid. I think if we start encouraging military families, particularly
young enlisted families, to buy mobile homes we may be opening up
some economic problems for them too.
Providing schools is another problem. It is often people with small
children who are looking at mobile homes. Repairs are difficult. You
don't have the repair facilities on base to take care of mobile homes.
There are all kinds of serious considerations that we get into when we
try to encourage people to live in mobile homes. But if they want them
and are looking for space and can't find it outside, I think we should
give serious consideration to providing the kind and number of facil-
ities they need.
It is just not a simple problem. The tax consequences in various
States are different. States tax mobile homes differently. In some
States they are not taxed as real property, not as a home. This is a
consideration that has to be taken into account by servicemen who are
using them too. It is a very complicated situation.
Mr. SIxEs. That is very well stated. I am glad that you brought that
out for the record.
The point, again, is that we are not necessarily arguing for more
trailer space. We are seeking to determine what the policy is in view
of the fact that many airmen do buy mobile homes or trailers because
it is the lowest cost housing they can get, and they can take it with
them from place to place.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Long.
Mr. LONG. It does seem to me that in a lot of areas the commercial
trailer parks are literally horrible things from a social point of view,
as in several cases which have been brought to my attention, where
people are just packed in, unbelievably tightly, in order to make a
profit for the people that run the trailer parks. Limitations on zoning
may assist people who have a monopoly to exploit it.
I would think that the military would provide much more decent,
pleasant parks, because they do not have zoning problems and pro-
tests from the community.
I would like to get a comment on that for the record. Also, on the
matter of cost and depreciation of trailers, particularly depreciation.
I understand trailers depreciate a lot faster than do regular homes.
Just why, I do not know. Maybe it is because they do not own the land.
Under a normal home, the land goes up in value as the house goes
down. The land's increased price offsets the depreciation on the house.
So a man, ,at the end of 10 or 20 years, owns something of greater
value than when he bought it.
I understand that is not true of a trailer. Please give us some idea
of the economics of the trailer business for the record.
[The information follows:]
STATEMENT ON QUALITY OF BASE MOBILE HOME PARKS AND COST/EcONOMICS
OF MOBILE HOMES
On a whole, we feel that we do provide a better mobile home facility on base
for our people than those constructed in the local area. OSD allows us to pro-
= ---s~-m-r_- ~i---F----
gram our spaces in the United States at an average cost of $4,000. In our mobile
home courts we provide the 'space with a pad, utility connections and distribution
lines, roads, streets, sidewalks, storage building, a patio and a community
facility, if possible. We construct six to eight spaces to an acre. There are not
many courts in local communities having all these amenities, which we feel are
necessary.
Mobile homes depreciate in value rather than increasing in value, as regular
homes, because there is no land associated with a mobile home. In many states
mobile homes are considered vehicles and depreciate in value in the same man-
ner as an automobile, bus, or truck. The manner in which mobile homes are
constructed, with metal siding, small wooden or steel support member and thin
flooring, causes them to deteriorate faster than conventional construction of
brick, stone, heavy timbers, and hardwood flooring. Mobile homes also are
considered to be short-term housing where conventional housing construction is
permanent or long-term. These are the main reasons why mobile homes depre-
ciate in value.
FAMILY HOUSING MODERNIZATION BACKLOG
Mr. SIKES. What is the backlog of modernization for Air Force
family housing ? How much are you proposing to spend in the next
5 years in this area ?
General REILLY. The backlog of modernization for Air Force family
housing is approximately $300 million. In the next 5 years we hope
to spend $200 million at $40 million annually.
TRENDS AFFECTING FAMILY HOUSING DEFICIT
Mr. SIKES. What factors have tended to increase or decrease bachelor
and family housing requirements in the last year or so? Do you see
these as continuing trends?
General REILLY. The decrease in family housing requirements results
from a projected decrease in military Air Force manpower authoriza-
tions and the increase in BAQ and military pay. With the pay and
allowance increases, our personnel can afford better housing which
they consider adequate. As a result, this increases the number of ade-
quate available community support assets and decreases the require-
ments to construct on-base housing. We do not expect this trend to
continue. The constant increases in rental housing and the escalating
costs of construction should eventually level off this trend.
Several factors have increased bachelor housing requirements while
other factors have decreased our requirements. Increased adequacy
standards, aging of facilities, desire for more privacy, increased cost
of community support housing, and spaces lost -due to modernization
tend to increase our requirements. New construction authorization, in-
creased pay and allowances, and reductions in force levels tend to de-
crease our requirements. In the case of the Air Force our actual
deficits requiring new construction have been decreasing; however,
our modernization requirements are increasing. We see a continuance
of this trend for the next few years.
BASING OF F-1 5 AIRCRAFT
Mr. SIKES. You are procuring 30 F-15's in the fiscal year 1973 pro-
gram and are requesting 77 more in fiscal year 1974. Also, according
to General Ryan's statement before the Defense Subcommittee, the Air
Force is requesting the F-15 fighter to "defeat any fighter postulated
for the 1975-85 time frame." From the construction standpoint, 1975 is
iot very far off.
When do you anticipate that your plans to base these aircraft in the
United States and overseas will be firm ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, the site for the crew training will be
Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.
We have several projects in the fiscal 1974 program to support the
F-15 training there. The operational bases have not been selected as
yet and final decisions have not been made, but they will be made in
time for the necessary construction support to be in the 1975 program.
Mr. SIKES. So there is no listing available, at this time, of bases over-
seas and at home, other than Luke, at which the F-15 will be based ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIREs. What special facilities do you anticipate the F-15 will
require?
General REILLY. It is not going to take a great deal in terms of new,
peculiar facilities. We will have to provide a new facility for the simu-
lators in which the crew members train. It is a much more sophisti-
cated trainer, requiring high ceiling heights.
We will also have to provide sound suppressor equipment for air-
craft engine runups.
Mr. SIKES. Will you have a considerable noise problem with this
aircraft as compared to others ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it is a higher thrust aircraft with higher
noise. Consistent with our recent policy for all our fighter aircraft,
we will provide sound suppression equipment for ground runups sup-
porting maintenance.
BASING OF B-1 AIRCRAFT
Mr. SIxES. Have you identified the bases at which the B-1 will be
located?
General REILLY. No, sir, they have not been selected. That is a little
further downstream than the F-15 in terms of operation.
Mr. TALCOTT. What are you going to do about the sonic boom prob-
lems with the F-15 and the B-1? In addition to the noise, the runup,
taking off and landing, there is the sonic boom when you are practicing.
This is obnoxious to almost everybody. So where do you go to practice?
General REILLY. There are designated areas. The sonic boom is very
carefully controlled by the Air Force. There are areas designated in
which supersonic flight is conducted.
Mr. TALCOTT. Mostly over the ocean ?
General REILLY. A lot over the ocean and some over land.
Mr. TALCOTT. Is the sonic boom a consideration in selecting the loca-
tion of an operational base ?
General REILLY. That could have some bearing, yes sir. Principally
for supersonic flight, we try to do it over water or in remote areas.
Mr. TALCOrr. You talked about the facilities, the special facilities
that you will need for run-up testing on ground. But that may not be
as obnoxious as the sonic boom, which 'actually destroys property,
breaks windows, this sort of thing.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. TALCOTT. This can happen almost everywhere. I would think
that would be a larger consideration than the problem of the engine
runup.
-C aarrrPm~T-7~~---~^~ -?~-_r--~
30
General REILLY. Engine runup is conducted very frequently and
must be done in close proximity to other maintenance facilities. We
must suppress that noise to where it is not objectionable and also for
the safety of the maintenance people who must work around the air-
craft. But we do not envision the supersonic aspects of the F-15 or
the B-1 being any more critical than other supersonic aircraft we have
at the present time.
Mr. SIKEs. When do you anticipate you will be programing facilities
for the B-1, in what fiscal year ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, I just cannot say at the moment. I
think, according to the present schedule, the first aircraft will be pro-
cured in fiscal year 1978.
Mr. SIKES. What is your information thus far on facility require-
ments?
General REILLY. They are several years out.
Mr. SIKES. Insofar as you can, answer the following questions for
the record.
The B-1 will be a smaller, lighter aircraft than the B-52, with a
shorter take-off distance.
(a) Will the B-1 be able to use existing B-52 facilities, such as
hangars, landing fields, et cetera?
[The information follows:]
B-1 USE OF EXISTING B-52 FACILITIES
Airfield pavements and other support facilities, such as hangars, which are
used in support of B-52 operations can be used to support the smaller and
lighter B-1 aircraft.
(b) What special facilities will the B-1 require ?
[The information follows:]
B-1 SPECIAL FACILITIES NEEDED
Existing runways, parking areas, hangars, and other facilities that are
adequate for the B-52 will be adequate for the B-1 with some minor modifica-
tions. Sound suppressors will probably be required on the engine test facilities
and on the aircraft runup facilities. Modifications to accommodate special test
and maintenance equipment will be required to field and depot level maintenance
facilities.
(c) Could the B-1 operate from most of the runways at bases which
support Air Force flying units ?
[The information follows:]
B-1 OPERATION FROM RUNWAYS
Air Force runways have been designed and constructed to three basic load
bearing criteria : light load, medium load, and heavy load. Many of our runways
are heavy load or medium load pavement which will support continued B-1 opera-
tions; however, pavements designed and constructed for tactical aircraft opera-
tions normally are light load which will not support continued B-1 operations.
(d) Would runways at your major MAC bases require reinforce-
ment for use by the B-1? What about runways at TAC fighter or
TAC airlift bases?
[The information follows:]
MODIFICATION OF RUNWAY-B-1
Runways at most of our MAC bases consist of medium load pavements which
will support B-1 operations without reinforcement. Since the B-1 weight is some-
what heavier than the design criteria for medium load pavement, continued B-1
operations would reduce the life of these pavements. The extent of this reduced
life would depend upon the number of operational cycles involved. Runways at
most TAC bases consist of light load pavement which would require reinforce-
ment to support continued B-1 operations.
Mr. SIKES. For the record, compare the dimensions of the B-1 with
those of the B-52, KC-135, C-9, C-141, F-111, and F-4 aircraft.
[The information follows:]
COMPARISON OF DIMENSIONS OF B-1 BOMBER
[In feet]
Length Span
B---------------------------------------------------------------------------. 157.5 1 88.0
B-52G-----................................. ----------------------------------------------------- 157.6 185.0
KC-135------------------............................-------------------------------------------......................................... 136.2 130.8
C-9-------------------------..................................-----------------------------------.. 119.3 93.3
C-130-----...........------------------------------------------------------- 97. 9 132. 7
C-141--------.....------------------------------------------------------................................................................ 145.0 160.0
F-4 ...................................................................... .58. 2 38. 4
F-11.................................................................-------------------------------------------------------.. 75. 5 32. 0
I Extended 136.7 feet.
s Extended 63 feet.
SAC SATELLITE BASING
Mr. SIKES. We will discuss the Air Force's SAC satellite basing
programs in detail in the classified session, but tell us what you can
about your program now.
General REILLY. The satellite basing program is nearing the com-
pletion of the so-called phase 1 that we reported to the committee
in prior year for which, you will recall, some $21 million in appro-
priations had been provided. The SAC bomber fleet and tanker fleet
will be located at 26 main operating bases, supplemented by 18 satellite
bases.
Now 14 of those 18 are operational at the present time, 3 addi-
tional ones will be readied this fall, and the fourth one about this
time next year.
We have no plans at the moment to go beyond that phase 1 of the
program.
SPACE SHUTTLE
Mr. SIKES. Is there money in this year's budget for the Air Force
portion of the space shuttle?
General REILLY. No, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Do you have estimates of construction costs?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, it has been estimated as something
around $200 million.
Mr. SIKES. In what fiscal year do you expect to begin to need this
money ?
General REILLY. We do not know. We expect maybe the initial
money in say, the 1977 time frame-fiscal year 1977 and then build-
ing up after that. But really, the program is just not defined that
well yet to see just what year.
MAJOR TEST FACILITIES-HIRT AND AERO PROPULSION SYSTEMS TEST
FACILITY
Mr. SIKEs. Are you prepared at this time to tell us about the Air
Force's long-range plans for the construction of major test facilities
such as the high Reynolds number tunnel and the Aeropropulsion Sys-
tems test facility which we discussed last year?
General REILLY. We are progressing or proceeding with the early
planning for both of these facilities.
The aeropropulsion systems test facility is a large facility -and will
cost approximately $240 million. We have been working for just about
a year now on the preliminary design and engineering to define the
scope of the project and to develop realistic cost estimates.
We expect to move into the second phase of the design within the
next year. Now the HIRT, the high Reynolds number tunnel facility,
is a smaller facility and less costly, at something around $40 million.
We are just in the process now of getting the first phase of design
underway. It is my understanding that the Office of Secretary of De-
fense will probably ask that the high Reynolds number facility be
put in the fiscal 1975 program. The larger facility we expect to come
in the following years.
Mr. TALCOTT. Could you explain the relationship between what
NASA is doing and what the Air Force is doing in research and de-
velopment in the aeronautics field ? It is my understanding that NASA
was doing a considerable amount of the research and development in
the astronautics field for the Air Force, or at least that the Air Force
had an agreement that NASA would do this sort of research develop-
ment and testing.
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. TALCOTT. I do not know whether it relates to these two projects
or not, but it seems to me we should not be duplicating our facilities,
especially for programs costing $280 million.
General REILLY. Yes. There has been a high level NASA Depart-
ment of Defense Board-the Aeronautics and Astronautics Co-
ordination Board (AACB), which has had the task of coordinating
the requirements for, and who will be responsible for recommending
the acquisition of these very large and costly research and develop-
ment facilities. These are national facilities, that is, large, unique, ex-
pensive aeronautical test facilities that will satisfy the aeronautical
test requirements of any given service, agency, or firm. Thus, the
Nation will have a one-of-a-kind aeronautical test facility for all users.
The AACB decided that the high Reynolds number facility and
the Aeropropulsion Systems test facility (ASTF) would be as-
signed to the Air Force for acquisition and the so-called V/STOL
tunnel was assigned to NASA for development. Those three facilities
are the major facilities now in the planning stage. But the activities
of NASA versus the Air Force are very carefully coordinated.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Nicholas ?
Mr. NICHOLAS. We have discussed the facilities in support of the
Space Shuttle program at Vandenberg, the high Reynolds number
tunnel, and the Aeropropulsion Systems test facility. Are these types
of things in your 5-year program at the present time ? If so, are they
responsible for increasing your deficit in the manner which we have
talked about ?
General REILLY. No, sir; they are not definitely in the 5-year program
at the present time. I think it is the intention of the Secretary of De-
fense to put the HIRT facility in the program, but we have not yet
incorporated either the Space Shuttle or the ASTF into the 5-year
program.
Mr. NICHOLAS. So this would be in addition to the $6.8 billion which
you see as your deficit ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Davis?
FISCAL YEAR 1974 REQUEST
Mr. DAVIs. I have a few general questions on your 1974 request,
General.
BACHELOR HOUSING-COST AND SQUARE FEET PER MAN
Upon how many net and how many gross square feet per man is
this bachelor housing program based ?
General REILLY. I'or E-1 recruits, we have 72 square feet net, 132
square feet gross; E-2's through E-4's, 90 square feet net, 157 square
feet gross; E-5's and E-6's, 135 net, 227 square feet gross, and for our
three top NCO's, 270 square feet net and 452 square feet gross. Now
this is consistent with out triservice policy.
Mr. DAVIS. What average unit cost are you using in this budget for
bachelor quarters ?
General REILLY. Our bachelor airman quarters are programed at
$28.50 a square foot, our officer quarters at $30.50 a square foot, a slight
increase over last year.
Mr. DAvIs. That compares to what for last year ?
General REILLY. Last year it was $27 and $29, just $1.50 less per
square foot.
NUMBER OF MEN PER ROOM
Mr. DAVIS. What changes-I suppose we would consider them im-
provements-in typical bachelor housing units are included in the
1974 program as contrasted with the 1972 program?
General REILLY. Actually, sir, our 1974, 1973, and 1972 programs
have all been on the same basic criteria. Our objective has been to
have not more than two men to a room with private bath. In the 1974
program, our dormitory design provides two sizes of rooms: 180
square foot room with private bath in which we will put two E-2's to
E-4's, and then a 270-square-foot room which is larger, again with its
own bath, where we will put two E-5's or E-6's or one E-7, E-8, or
E-9. That is the same criteria that we are building in the 1972 program
except we did not program any spaces for grades above E-4.
Mr. LONG. Will you yield ?
Are those not somewhat more luxurious and commodious quarters
than the Army is providing in its construction for enlisted quarters?
Generall REILLY. NO, sir. The figures I have just quoted are-
Mr. LONG. I am not talking about money.
General REILLY. The space ?
Mr. LONG. It seems to me the enlisted people in the Army were not
given quite such a good deal insofar as the number of men to a room
and bath.
34
General REILLY. I think the only difference, Mr. Long, is that the
Army does put three men to a room.
Mr. LONG. That is what I meant. And you have two.
General REILLY. We have felt two should be the maximum.
Mr. LONG. That is quite a difference. Can you justify that ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
We feel that that additional privacy is important.
Mr. LONG. I mean how can you ask for it and not the Army, and
how can we justify giving it to you and not giving it to the Army ?
General REILLY. The Office of Secretary of Defense has taken the
position that as long as we can get those accommodations within the
dollars that are provided, within the statutory limitations, they have
no objection.
Mr. LONG. I suggest then, that we ask the Army to review what the
Air Force is doing, to see if they cannot come up to the same stand-
ards, since it is not costing any more. Why can they not provide as
much for the Army people ?
Mr. SIKES. Are you sure it is not costing any more? How can that be?
General REILLY. It costs more to put two men in a room than three.
Mr. SIKEs. What the Army has to learn is, you do not get poor from
asking. You were not here when I brought that out.
Mr. LONG. So, we are giving a better deal for the Air Force people
than we are for the Army. I just do not know how you can justify
that.
General REILLY. We have continued to resist the three men to a
room.
Mr. LONG. I wonder how you can justify the discrimination between
Army and Air Force.
Mr. TALCOTT. The space and money criteria are the same. But the
Army is putting three men to a room and the Air Force is trying
to avoid doing that. That is the only difference, as I understand
the testimony.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. LONG. I did not quite hear you.
Mr. TALCOTT. I think the space and the money criteria are the same
for all the services. What the Army does is build three-man rooms
whereas the Air Force is only putting two to a room.
Mr. LONG. Will you tell us in the record how many square feet
you are allowing per man, whether that is the same in the Air Force
as it is in the Army.
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it is.
[The information follows:]
Each of the services uses the same space criteria for bachelor housing. These
criteria are as follows:
Net Ziving
area per man
Grades: (square feet)
El (recruit) ------------------------------------------------72
E2-E4 ----------------------------------------------------90
E5-E6--- ------------------------------------------------- 135
E7-E9 ---- ------------------------------------------------270
02 and below ---------------------------------------------- 330
03 and above---- ---------------------------------------- 460
Mr. SIKES. Do you not find also that the Army is using a little
different concept in that they are using more space for lounge facili-
ties, et cetera, and the Air Force is providing more space per indi-
vidual ?
General REILLY. Yes. I am really not too familiar with just how
much lounge space they are putting in. We rather minimized the
amount of lounge space that we put into our buildings; we have some
but we have not gone overboard on it. We would rather have the
space in the individual rooms.
Mr. SIKEs. I think that enters into it.
I think we also must give credit for the fact that it was not until
recent years that the Army and the Navy began to get away from the
open barracks facilities. The Air Force has not built those for a
long time.
'General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SrIKEs. The other services are working toward better facilities.
They had further to go. It has taken time and it is costing money, but
they are building better facilities.
Mr. LONG. I raise these points partly for the reasons I have indi-
cated, and also because I think it is unfair to your fighting men if
there is created the idea that certain services are elitist and are entitled
to better living.
We all know that the Army has a hard time recruiting people, par-
ticularly for the infantry. There is always a preference for these other
services. The infantry has the hardest time getting people and keep-
ing them. That is certainly going to be true if they are going to be
discriminated against in any way in housing. I for one object to that.
I feel they all should be treated the same.
Mr. TALCOTT. I think there are some other considerations. The
configuration of a company in the Army is a little bit different than
the squadron or whatever the basic element is in the Air Force; a
different number of men are involved in each one. But my overall
impression is that the same space and money criteria 'apply to all
three services. How they work it around to suit their peculiar require-
ments may be different.
Mr. LONG. If that is true, that is all right with me. But I 'would like
to bring that out clearly and make sure it is true.
General REILLY. The Army is basing their design around a 270-
square foot room, providing 90-square foot minimum, and they put
either three, two or one man in it, depending on the grade.
It has also been the feeling through the years that the Army works
a little differently than the Air Force. The lower grade Army men are
in the field during the days and back in the quarters at night; whereas,
in the Air Force, it is hard to get three men who are in the same job.
You have greatly varying jobs on an air base. That is one of the prob-
lems with three men in a room. One guy working the night shift,
another working the day shift. We feel that can be somewhat mini-
mized by just having two men to a room.
Mr. SIKES. Since the matter has been brought up, and in order to
have a clear record, will you obtain from the other services the criteria
which they follow? Give us a summation of the criteria followed by
each of the services on space per man in enlisted barracks.
Mr. LONG. And the cost.
Mr. SIKES. And the cost.
General REILLY. Yes; Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA AND COST PER MAN FOR BACHELOR HOUSING FOR ALL
SERVICES
The three services use the same criteria to design dormitories with one excep-
tion; i.e., the number of lower grade enlisted men (E-2-E-4) assigned to a room.
For these grades the Army and Navy provide a 270-net-square-foot room with
a private bath for three men; whereas the Air Force plan provides a smaller
room of 180 net square feet with a private bath for two men. For grades E-5--E-9,
the services provide the same 270 net square foot with bath; shared by two
E-5--E-6 or occupied solely by one E-7--E-9. Thus, the Air Force design objec-
tive provides slightly more privacy for the lower grades and the Army and Navy
plans allow more common use areas. All services are programing their fiscal year
1974 bachelor housing at $28.50 and $30.50 per square foot for dormitories and
officer quarters, respectively. These unit costs are adjusted by the applicable area
cost factor as required and authorized by the public law.
Mr. SIKES. Of course there should not be favoritism toward one of
the services. They should all have equal treatment. Presumably each
is attempting to achieve what it thinks is best with the money avail-
able, but let's get the facts for the record.
Mr. DAVIS. You do have the same gross space criteria and the same
overall cost criteria ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, essentially the same gross, net, and cost.
Mr. DAVIs. So it is the differences in the design of your building
that account for the variation in the number of men assigned to one
room?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. NICHOLAS. IS there not a provision in the OSD regulation which
allows you to request greater gross square feet per man if you feel you
can do it within the maximum average cost limitation ?
I think the Army has used this to a certain extent; they program up
to 165 gross square feet per man.
Colonel SHOOK. The only provision is that the standards that are
established by OSD are minimum standards. If the Air Force, as an
example, could obtain a higher gross or a higher minimum than is in
the standard now, they would be allowed to do so as long as it is within
the cost limitations and the funds provided.
The Air Force is building exactly the same square footage for an
E-2, 3, 4, as the Army is. The only difference is that we are building
180-square-foot rooms, they are building 270-souare-foot rooms for an
E-2, 3, 4; we assign two men, they assign three.
Our main reason for wanting that, sir, is the fact that the current
Air Force inventory is predominantly in Korean vintage or later fa-
cilities. When OSD raised the minimum standards, last year, from the
72 to the 90 square foot except for recruits, we went essentially from
three-man to two-man rooms in order to provide these standards. If we
were to do the same as the Army does, we would be regressing to three-
man rooms.
The Army has gone, conversely, from open bay, building toward
room configuration, and they 'are working toward the new standards.
So they are moving ahead for the Army, but it would be a regression
for the Air Force if we went back to a three-man room.
Mr. DAVIS. When did you go to the same overall criteria as to space
and cost as the Army ?
Colonel SHOOK. The 90 square-foot criteria was 'approved in May of
last year by OSD. That is applicable to all three services.
SAVINGS FROM PRIOR YEAR PROGRAMS
Mr. DAVIS. It is indicated here that $10 million of prior year sav-
ings, as well as recoupments from Southeast Asia appropriations will
be applied to this year's military construction budget.
Can you tell us the sources from which those funds are going to be
derived ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. Mr. Lee, will you answer please.
Mr. LEE. The $10 million of prior years' appropriations to be ap-
plied .against the fiscal year 1974 appropriation request is not derived
from funds appropriated for Southeast Asia operations. They were
derived from many projects mostly in the fiscal years 1971 and 1972 for
which favorable bids were received.
SOUTHEAST ASIA BALANCES
Mr. DAVIS. In addition to that $10 million, are there unobligated bal-
ances remaining in the Southeast Asia account ?
General REILLY. Yes. We have some very small ones.
Mr. Lee?
Mr. LEE. About $7 million unobligated in an $843 million program.
We are still constructing in Thailand.
Mr. SIKES. There is construction going on in Thailand ?
Mr. LEE. Yes, sir, in Thailand.
Mr. TALCOTT. Does Southeast Asia include Guam or Okinawa ?
Mr. LEE. Yes, sir, it did include Guam, Okinawa, and some construc-
tion in Japan.
Mr. TALCOTT. It that Southeast Asia, too, Japan ?
Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. There was some in the United States.
Mr. SIXES. Let's have a breakdown of the entire Solitheast Asia
program for fiscal 1974.
Mr. LEE. There is nothing in this program for Southeast Asia.
These are all older programs that are still going on.
Mr. SIgEs. There are no funds being requested for new construction
in Southeast Asia?
Mr. LEE. No new construction in Southeast Asia.
Mr. SIXES. Very well.
Mr. DAVIs. So that we can have it available to us, would you just
provide us in the record the status of obligations and expenditures?
Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
STATUS OF OBLIGATIONS AND EXPENDITURES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA PROGRAM
The following table shows the status of program, obligations, and disburse-
ments by country for the $843 million appropriated in fiscal years 1965 through
1969 for military construction for Southeast Asia operations. No funds were
appropriated after fiscal year 1969. None are requested in fiscal year 1974.
38
(In thousands of dollars]
May 31, 1973 Apr. 30, 1973 Apr. 30, 1973
Country program obligations disbursements
Vietnam ........------------------------------------------------ 399, 807 396, 535 388, 980
Thailand-------------....--.......----------------------------------......................................... 250, 558 250, 486 244, 730
Laos...----------...................-----------------------------------------................................. 7,093 6,988 6,950
Korea..........................................................-------------------------------------------------- 48,175 48, 129 47, 607
Taiwan ...------------------------------------------------- 27,317 27,299 27,294
Okinawa--......................................................... 30,939 30,925 30,792
Japan............................................................ 2,826 2,826 2,826
Philippines........---------------------------------------------- 21, 534 21,527 21, 135
Guam -------------------------------------------------- 12,901 12,764 12,764
Wake Island........---------------------------------------------- 3,036 3,036 3,036
United States --------------------------------------------- 11,999 11,999 11,999
Design S ------------------------------------------------- 23, 000 23,000 23,000
Undistributed I1.......................--------------- 3, 908 0 0
Total .... --------------------------------------------- 843, 093 835, 514 821,113
1 2,200 reserved for Vietnamization projects; 509 reserved for Joint Casualty Resolution Center, Thailand; 1,199 not
reserved.
Mr. SIKES. There is no new money in this request for Southeast
Asia. Is there construction for Southeast Asia ?
Mr. LEE. There is construction still going on using old money.
Mr. SIKES. Is there any new construction to be initiated in fiscal
1974?
Mr. LEE. Not that I know of.
General REILLY. NO, Sir.
Mr. SIKES. All right.
SAVINGS FROM PRIOR PROGRAMS
Mr. DAVIS. A year ago you gave us an estimate of savings from
sources other than Southeast Asia. I am not sure it was a year ago, at
least some time ago you did. How do your estimates compare with your
actual savings ? Do you have any information on that ?
Mr. LEE. It would be hard to say until the entire program is under
contract.
As General Reilly indicated, at the present time our 1973 program
is running about 97 percent of the program cost. Whether we will
finish out that well or not, I am not sure.
General REILLY. I think it will pretty well balance out by the time
we have it all under contract.
REPROGRAMINGS
Mr. DAVIS. In order that we may have it all in one place, would you
provide for the record the amount of money for which the Air Force,
in its military construction program, has requested reprograming au-
thority in the current fiscal year ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
AMOUNT OF REPROGRAMING AUTHORITY IN MCP REQUEST
Deficiency authorization, Public Law 91-142, Military Construction Act, 1970.
Williams AFB, Ariz., $546,000. Increase from $4,462,000 to $5,008,000.
Realine headquarters structure U.S. Air Force in Europe. Section 303 of Public
Law 92-145, Military Construction Act, 1972. $3,351,000.
39
Armament research test facility, Kirtland AFB, N. Mex. Section 303 of Public
Law 92-145, Military Construction Act, 1972. $5,656,000.
Various facilities damaged by Hurricane Agnes, McGuire AFB, N.J. Title 10,
U.S. Code 2673. $1,577,000.
Depot aircraft overhaul facility, McClellan AFB, Calif. Section 301, Public
Law 92-545, Military Construction Act of 1973. $3,807,000.
CINCLANT airborne command post, Langley AFB, Va. Section 303, Public
Law 92-545, Military Construction Act of1973. $3,960,000.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS-NOT REQUIRED
DUE TO BASE CLOSURES
Mr. DAVIS. The base closure announcements have had some impact
on previously provided funds. Can you give us the information as to
the military construction funds from prior years that have been
affected by the base closure announcements, and give us a separate
breakdown for the family housing ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
Also, I would like to have a listing, by bases, of where there will be
projects deleted because of this closure action, for the record.
[The information follows:]
LISTING OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED' PROJECTS AFFECTED BY BASE REALINEMENT
[In thousands]
Fiscal Military Family
Base year construction housing Total
Hamilton AFB, Calif. O--------------------------------------------- 0 ----------
McCoy AFB, Fla.------------------------------------------------ 0 0.. -
Forbes AFB, Kans_. ------------------------ 0 .....
Westover AFB, Mass--------------------------------1973 $455 0 $455
Squadron operation facility------------------------1973 (455) .----------------------
Laredo AFB, Tex ---------------------------------- 1973 133 $4,316 4,449
Security police facility. .---------------------------- 1973 (133) .........................
New family housing-----------------------------1973 -------------- (4, 316) - - -
RameyAFB,P.R ------------------------------------------------ 0 0 ......
Total...............------------------------------------------------ 588 4,316 4,904
CRITERIA FOR BASE REALINEMENT ACTIONS
Mr. LONG. Provide the committee with the Air Force's criteria on
base utilization and realinement actions.
[The information follows:]
PAGE NO.: 1781 LINE NO.: 3 OF TRANSCRIPT
DiTE: 29 MAY 1973 Morning Session
Insert No. H-2025
CRITERIA FOR BASE REALIGNMENT ACTIONS
PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to present the major considerations and
criteria used within the Air Force in developing basing programs which result in
realignment actions.
BACKGROUND: The base posture of the Air Force exists to support the assigned
forces. Since forces are a dynamic element, the base posture is also dynamic in
its nature. As forces change, base requirements change, and as a result realign-
ments in the base posture are required. The major considerations and criteria
used to determine base realignments must insure that the action selected from the
available alternatives best meets the various operational, geographic, facility,
environmental and economic parameters and is the most consistent with the overall
mission requirements of the Air Force. The Air Force has pursued a policy of
achieving an optimum base structure to support the currently assigned and
projected forces. As force levels and oversea deployments have reduced during
the last twelve years, the number of Air Force bases has also reduced. The
following table reflects the reduction in Air Force major installations since
FY 1960.
MAJOR INSTALLATION FY 60 FY 64 FY 68 FY 70 FY 72 FY 73
CONUS 163 151 129 116 112 111
Overseas 9o 65 9 62 49 46
Total 253 216 198 178 161 157
The reduction in the number of Air Force bases world-wide has been the result of
a continual evaluation of the forces' base requirements. The most effective
bases are selected for retention when base closure actions are initiated.
MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS AND CRITERIA: In determining the effectiveness of an
installation, several major considerations are germane. First is the need to
provide installations which meet the various operational and training require-
ments of assigned forces. Second, there is the need to provide bases to support
the force deployments envisioned in the United States strategy. Third is the
policy that multi-mission bases, i.e., ones at which various force types
(strategic, logistical, airlift, etc.) are stationed, will be used to the maximum
extent possible. Fourth, that the base posture should retain the flexibility to
beddown the force when unprogrammed changes occur.
The above considerations have evolved into broad criteria which are used in the
Air Force in developing and evaluating base realignment actions. These are:
geographic location; facility availability and condition; community support
available for Air Force activities/population; potential to accommodate future
force requirements; existing or future encroachment which might impact Air Force
operations; budgeting considerations inherent in the proposed realignment action;
possible adverse environmental impact; and mission degradation as a result of
force turbulence.
In developing realignment actions, the major considerations and criteria have to
be evaluated for each proposal in total, as opposed to each one being independent,
with the goal of achieving an optimum balance. A discussion of the four major
considerations and the resultant criteria is provided below.
MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS:
Operational and Training Requirements: Since the Air Force base posture exists
to support the mission of the assigned forces, the ability of each base to meet
the unique operational and training requirements of the assigned force is of
paramount importance. Each force element, such as strategic offense, tactical
fighter, strategic airlift, etc., has its own peculiarities in terms of mission
and training which manifests itself in terms of airspace, range requirements,
deployment and employment routes, availability of lines of communications,
survivability, facility requirements, etc. The current base posture reflects a
force beddown in which the forces' operational and training requirements are best
supported. Realignment of forces can make alterations of the base posture
necessary, however, the resulting beddown must, to the extent possible, enhance
the ability of the force to meet its unique operational and training requirements
These requirements are summarized below.
Strategic Offense (Bombers/Tankers): Pre-launch survivability of the alert
force coupled with geographic locations which allow proper bomber-tanker mating
after launch and optimum entry into primary employment routes to target areas.
41
Strategic Defense (Fighter Interceptors): Peripheral coverage of the
Continental United States.
Tactical Fighter: Accessibility of weapons ranges (air-to-air and air-to-
ground) plus sufficient airspace to allow for extensive operational training in
flight maneuvers such as formation flying. Maximum "good weather" days to
facilitate operational flight training under visual conditions.
Tactical Airlift: Accessibility to training areas for assault landing and
drop zones and close proximity to Army elements which use tactical airlift support
in training and during deployment.
Strategic Airlift (MAC): Accessibility to transportation networks which can
carry cargo/passengers to and from the terminal complex, coupled with proximity
to cargo generation areas.
Pilot Training: Availability of a large area of dedicated airspace which is
required for student flight activities coupled with minimal poor weather days
which could preclude visual flight activities.
Air Reserve Forces: Potential to man assigned units.
Force Deployment: The Air Force force structure is based on the national strategy.
This strategy determines potential areas in which forces would be used and
determines which forces should be deployed forward in overseas locations and which
forces would be deployed or employed from the CONUS. This strategy then serves
to determine how many and what kind of bases we need overseas versus the CONUS.
Use of Multi-Mission Bases: A major expense of each installation is the re-
sources required to "open the door". That is the basic number of people and
things needed to support any assigned mission. This base operating and support
force, however, does not increase in a direct proportion to a growth in assigned
base missions. Addition of new missions to an existing base results in signifi-
cantly less base operating and support resources than does establishing a new
base or retaining and operating a single-mission installation which is not
limited by geographic or other requirements. Therefore, when missions are
compatible and facilities available or obtainable, it is cost-advantageous to
develop multi-mission bases. This is particularly true when one of the missions
is of a support nature such as headquarters, materiel depot, or research and
development activity and the other is operational such as tactical fighter,
strategic bomber, etc. Additionally, missions which have a relatively small
number of personnel or equipment are most economically accommodated on bases
which have other major missions. An example is the stationing of ADC fighter
interceptor squadrons on bases which have other major missions such as airlift or
strategic offense. Although multi-mission bases are economical, the compatability
of missions must be given prime consideration. Certain missions, such as pilot
training, do not lend themselves to multi-mission installations. Additionally,
the more missions assigned to an installation the greater the difficulty in
closing the installation if a major mission at the base is reduced, since re-
location of residual missions often proves impractical. In this sense, on the
basis of a reduced base structure, multi-mission bases may inhibit future
flexibility in restructuring the overall base posture.
Future Flexibility: Base realignment actions which result in base closures or
contribute to the maximum utilization of an installation, especially Air Force
bases which contain a relatively small amount of land, can result in a limiting
of future flexibility to meet various programmed and non-programmed force adjust-
ments. Although base closures and maximum base utilization are economically
sound objectives, the selection of bases to be closed, should, to the extent
possible, therefore, result in closure of the least flexible bases. If flexi-
bility were the sole determinant, bases which have constraints in the nature of
airspace, encroachment of civilian activities, single missions, limited real
estate, poor community support facilities, poor physical facilities, etc.,
should logically be considered for closure prior to bases which have the
potential to accommodate additional or new missions.
CRITERIA:
Geographic Location: The geographic location of an installation influences many
factors which bear on the ability of assigned forces to execute their mission.
These include weather, availability of training areas, proximity to employment/
deployment routes, survivability, airspace availability, transportation networks,
etc. For each mission there are optimum geographic locations which provide
maximum operational effectiveness. These locations, to the extent possible,
should be used in selecting bases to beddown missions. In some cases certain
42
mandatory elements may present themselves. For example, Undergraduate Pilot
Training requires 216 good weather work days during each year in order to main-
tain the course schedule. Locations which cannot meet this weather criteria
should not be considered for such a mission. Tactical fighter activities re-
quire that appropriate air-to-ground and air-to-air ranges be in close proximity
(200 miles). Lack of these ranges requires that training be degraded by reduced
mission time as a result of increased ferry time to and from the range. There-
fore, lack of a range in close proximity to a base eliminates it from considera-
tion as a tactical fighter base. However, other geographic factors are not as
binding in developing base realignments. For example, survivability of
strategic offensive forces is a prime consideration. If submarine launched
missiles are postulated to be the most critical threat, inland bases provide the
greatest survivability due to the longer flight time of the missiles. However,
this does not imply only inland base should be considered for strategic offensive
forces. Consideration of factors such as the inability of the runway complex to
support strategic operations, lack of needed large maintenance facilities to
house strategic bombers and tankers, poor quantity and quality of personnel
support facilities, and lack of munitions storage capability all may negate the
use of an existing inland base for a strategic force main operating base and
dictate continual use of a coastal base where these facilities are available. In
this case, survivability can be achieved through reposturing and dispersal of the
alert force at satellite locations to achieve the needed time to safely launch
the force.
Facility Availability: Maximum practical utilization of existing government
facilities with minimum expenditures for new facilities should be a primary goal
in realignment actions. This includes mission related facilities as well as
support facilities. The facility types that are of prime concern in base re-
alignment actions vary dependent on the mission under consideration. For
example, if the unit is an operational flying activity, the runway complex
(number, width, length, load bearing capacity), capacity of the aircraft parking
ramp, and a maintenance complex capable of supporting the assigned aircraft
(e.g., proper sized docks and hangers, sufficient communications-electronics
and avionics maintenance space, etc.) are of major concern in evaluating the
proposed action. Conversely, for administrative and headquarters activities,
the proper amount of administrative space is essential. For training activities,
classroom and student housing are key factors. For all actions, availability of
housing (bachelor and family) for any increase in population is a significant
element. However, facility availability varies in importance and influence on
base realignment actions. In some cases, mandatory requirements exist. For
example, parallel runways are an absolute requirement for Undergraduate Pilot
Training since the mix of training aircraft and number of air movements cannot
be accommodated on a single runway. Bases with single runways do not meet the
facility requirements for this mission and generally would not be considered as
a feasible alternative in realignment of pilot training bases without construc-
tion of additional runways. Additionally, certain unique facility requirements
are generated by intelligence, communications, logistical, and research and
development activities; relocation to installations which do not have facilities
available to accommodate these functions may be infeasible due to the cost of
new facilities. This, however, is a matter of economics. Also, due to mission
requirements, these facilities must often be duplicated and in being prior to
shutting down the current activity. This can often be expensive in terms of
delay in savings to be realized as well as redundancy in equipment and facili-
ties. Similar circumstances exist in relocating other missions such as stra-
tegic airlift which requires large terminal complexes to receive and process
cargo. However, other facility requirements might not be less critical. Re-
quirements for small missions may be provided with minor modification. This is
particularly true if the unit's equipment consists of small aircraft or if no
aircraft are assigned. Requirements for administrative space can be met in
various ways such as conversion of excess space in other functional areas.
Additionally, in considering bases for closure, the overall condition of the
real property facilities at the base is an important element in the selection
process. Often, if an activity is housed on an installation which has a great
deal of substandard deteriorated facilities - both prime mission as well as
support then relocation to a base with permanent facilities may be most
effective even if certain facility criteria cannot be initially met. Over a
period of time, provision of a few additional facilities would prove economically
beneficial as opposed to providing a large number of expensive replacement
facilities at the previous base. An additional facility consideration is the
extent a base's facilities support other installations in the area. For example,
if a base provides hospital, housing, and other support facilities for surround-
ing installations, then it may not be possible to completely close the base. As
a result, savings from the realignment may be significantly less than at a base
where all activities can be shut down and facilities declared excess.
Community Support: Civilian support resources (e.g., community housing, medical,
schools, and recreational facilities) are a consideration in developing base re-
alignment actions. When possible, base realignment actions should take maximum
advantage of already developed civilian resources which can be used to support
the assigned personnel. Of particular importance is family housing. Areas
which have residual capability to adequately house Air Force families will
negate the cost of providing government housing and facilitate rapid completion
of the proposed action. Conversely, areas in which community support facilities
are limited place an increasing degree of importance on the base facilities.
Adequate support should exist on or off a gaining base to avoid a realignment
action being counter productive in terms of personnel morale. Since excess
personnel support capability on our installations is limited, the contribution
of the civilian community in this area is very important.
Potential: Since the future forces cannot be predicted with certainty and are
subject to unprogrammed changes, flexibility to accommodate these changes within
the base posture should be preserved when possible and economical. This entails
developing reasonable assumptions on what unprogrammed force changes might occur
and determining how the various basing options could support the assumed force
changes. However, flexibility is difficult to quantify and, as a result, tends
to be a subjective consideration. There are some instances though which do lend
themselves to objective analysis. For example, pilot production capacity at each
Undergraduate Pilot Training base can be determined. Based on the required
levels of pilot production, the degree of flexibility (unused production capacity)
within the system can be determined and the degree that the system can meet in-
creases can be calculated. As a result, the degree of flexibility in the system
can be predicted and controlled. Similarly, workload versus base capacity can
be determined in a quantifiable manner for other training activities and depot
activities. As a result, flexibility in these areas is to some degree quantifi-
able. Conversely, the degree of flexibility of the base systems to meet other
program changes not the result of clear cut workloads is difficult to determine.
For example, the flexibility of the base system to accommodate tactical units in
the CONUS currently deployed overseas depends on many variables such as type of
unit, activity levels of the unit, if they are to be retained as active duty
forces or as reserve forces, etc. In these instances the underlying assumptions
are subjective and the requirement for flexibility is also subjective. Notwith-
standing the subjectivity, it is important that base realignment alternatives be
weighed in terms of their potential to meet unprogrammed force changes.
Encroachment: Urban and airspace encroachment into vital areas surrounding in-
stallations is of continuing concern. Some installations which were originally
remote have attracted major population growth and, as a result, continued air
operations have been threatened through urban expansion. The increased civil
and private air activity has served to restrict the airspace available for mili-
tary operations. Encroachment, therefore, is an element in determining the
future viability of an installation and is a consideration in determining base
realignment actions. Currently, programs to protect installations from encroach-
ment are being instituted. These are comprised of efforts to obtain zoning,
easements, or fee ownership of properties adjacent to bases so that only activi-
ties compatible with air operations will be developed in these areas. As a
result, encroachment should be brought under control. However, where encroach-
ment has become a major problem, its impact should be considered during develop-
ment of base realignment actions.
Budget: High-cost, single-mission installations with limited real estate and
outmoded, old, functionally inefficient facilities requiring large investments
for replacement facilities are prime candidates for closure. Significant annual
savings result from the closure of such bases. However, the relative cost
effectiveness of retaining installations is also a major factor in determining
base realignments. Consolidation of missions on a single multi-mission
44
installation which allows a base closure generally results in significant annual
savings. However, these savings are offset in some instances by the required
investment, particularly in facilities needed to consolidate. Additionally,
one-time relocation costs are a factor. In evaluating the budget implication of
base realignments it is necessary that initial and annual savings be weighed
against the one-time construction and movement costs of the various options.
Consideration should be given to consolidations which minimize the investment in
new facilities while maximizing the annual savings. In general, large outlays
in construction or equipment funds are not feasible and options which depend on
such outlays should be avoided unless no other viable alternative exists.
Environment: All actions must be assessed to determine their impact on the
environment. Base realignment options must have an initial assessment during the
preliminary planning. If significant environmental impact is indicated, for
example at a gaining installation, as a result of the assessment, then an
environmental impact statement must be filed.
Mission Degradation: Realignment actions, by their very nature, result in
turbulence both in personnel and in mission output. The degree of turbulence is
a consideration if the resulting mission degradation is of such a proportion as
to be significant. Certain activities cannot be allowed to "stand down" and, as
a result, realignments of these activities require in being capability at the
new location. Also, work force composition is a consideration in that a highly
specialized or unique work force of civilians may not facilitate relocation.
These factors should be considered in evaluating realignment actions.
Mr. LONG. Would you discuss the application of these criteria to
Hamilton, Otis, Forbes, McCoy, and Westover Air Force Bases.
Colonel REED. Sir, first of all, the Otis action was simply a reaffir-
mation or continuation of an announcement last year in which we
determined that the Air National Guard would be the primary user
and that starting in January 1973 the base would revert to Air
National Guard status and that we announced then in April that we
would continue and put the Air National Guard on a self-sustaining
basis and close down all the support facilities.
This decision last year resulted from the fact that the Bomarc
missile, which was one of the major active units, was phased out of
the force and we could relocate the residual air defense system eval-
uation mission to another base.
So that that particular installation had been earmarked for closure
prior to this time.
In the case of Hamilton and Ramey, these two installations had
relatively small active duty units.
Mr. LONG. Please give us the location of these bases.
Colonel REED. Yes, sir.
Hamilton Air Force Base in California and Ramey Air Force
Base in Puerto Rico. In the case of Ramey the installation housed
only a small weather reconnaissance unit of nine C-130's and with
drawdowns in other areas and reductions, we found it possible to relo-
cate that to a base which had a large or larger continuing mission
and satisfy one of the major considerations we have established,
that is, multimission bases. We were then able to draw down a base and
get rid of the base-operating support or the opening door support cost
by relocating the mission to other ongoing bases. Similarly, at Hamil-
ton Air Force Base, Calif., we had a small air defense unit which we
could relocate and a rescue unit which we could relocate. The air de-
fense unit is going to Castle, in facilities that used to house an F-106
outfit. Castle is in California in the bay area and basically in the
same air defense area as Hamilton AFB. The rescue unit is going
to McClellan AFB.
In the case of Westover Air Force Base, Mass., and McCoy Air
Force Base, Fla., we are dealing with a situation where the B-52
force has been scheduled for reduction-B-52D's being drawn down.
We reviewed all of the B-52 bases and concluded that, predicated on
our criterion that both of these bases were coastal bases and for some
considerations of survivability, they become less desirable than some
of our other B-52 bases.
In the case of McCoy we also had increasing civilian traffic and en-
croachment in and about the base, since it had become a rather large
international airport with Disney World and so forth developing in
that area, and the base was far south from our normal deployment
routes. Therefore the inactivation of the B-52's enabled us to relocate
the residual missions and close the base.
In Westover we were faced with a situation in which we had many,
many obsolete World War II type facilities generating large con-
struction requirements in the area of the officers' open mess, consid-
erations of the hospital, commissary, and so forth.
In addition, it is rather a populous area and from a weather stand-
point not appropriate for many of the flying activities which we might
conduct in that area.
Therefore, we selected Westover as another base at which the B-52
drawdown would allow us to relocate the mission to other active in-
stallations and let us have a major savings.
Now one other base involved in the announcement for major closure
was Laredo. This was a result of a reduction in requirement for over-
all pilot production. In viewing the pilot production bases, we deter-
mined that Laredo, particularly, from its geographic location on
the Mexican border, which curtails the flight area and the flight pat-
terns we can fly because we cannot penetrate Mexican air space, and
the fact that this location had allowed the city to envelop the base
primarily to the south and to the east, we would close that installation
because it had the least long-range potential from the standpoint of
encroachment and geographical location.
Additionally, there were a large number of World War II facilities
at the base. It faced the only total housing deficit, in fact it had housing
deficits in family and bachelor housing; no other pilot training base
had deficits in the family housing area. Laredo did. That is generally
how we applied the criteria as we developed them.
There were details provided in more expanded form in the case jus-
tification folder provided to the Appropriations and the Armed Serv-
ices Committees.
Mr. SIKES. That is a good answer.
Mr. TALCOTT. Where did the Ramey weather station go?
Colonel REED. To Keesler. They are hurricane hunters, as they are
called; they will be operating from Keesler Air Force Base. We are
phasing down a mission there that involves foreign pilot training; so
that the facilities did become available.
FUTURE BASE CLOSURES
Mr. LONG. You have indicated the Air Force has reduced its base
structure to an optimum level. Yet Secretary Richardson indicated
that there may be further base realinement announcements in the not
too distant future. Is it unlikely that the Air Force will close or sub-
stantially reduce any bases in the next year or two ?
Colonel REED. Sir, it is unlikely if the existing force structure which
the current base posture is predicated on is not altered. We will not
have any major closures or reductions in the foreseeable future if the
force structure remains stable.
Mr. LONG. What do you mean by major ? In other words, you could
have some base closures ?
Colonel REED. We-
Mr. LONG. How do you define a major base? That gives you quite a
bit of maneuvering room.
Colonel REED. No, sir. A base of over 250 population which is
closed, would be a major closure. A major reduction I would term as
those things which occur say, when we reduce to Air Force Reserve
status only, such as at Hamilton Air Force Base.
Mr. SIREs. Let's see if I can explore the background of the reason
for your answer.
What is likely to change the force structure? Certainly, the pro-
jected force structure is the minimum which the Air Force felt that it
could effectively utilize; is that correct ?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Then insofar as this budget level is concerned, you are
anticipating the force level which is presented in this year's budget ?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKEs. Are you saying that reductions by Congress might re-
quire further base closures?
Colonel REED. Sir, two major things can affect forces, as I see them.
First of all, a change in the threat: None of us are aware of any
major changes in the threat as postulated. The forces are needed to
meet that threat. The other considerations are budgetary constraints
which I am really not prepared to speculate about-would occur in
a future budget or as a result of congressional actions. However, if
a specific cut reduced forces, particularly large numbers of forces, or
changed the deployment concept of the Department of Defense as
relates to overseas versus Conus deployment of our forces, then, yes,
we would have to readdress the base structure and perhaps base
reductions or closures might result.
Mr. SIKES. I think that is a good analysis.
Mr. LONG. There is going to be a review of the fiscal 1975 budget
request this summer and fall?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Could decisions be made during this review to cause the
Air Force to further reduce its force level at Air Force bases?
Colonel REED. They could, sir; if such reviews result in lower levels
of forces. However, I am not aware of any.
Mr. LONG. You are not aware of anything at the present time ?
Colonel REED. NO, sir; my personal awareness.
Mr. LONG. Would you be helping to formulate the information that
would lead toward that?
Colonel REED. Our main-where I work, the main concern is to take
the force posture that is prepared to meet the threat within the con-
straints of the budget and "bed it down" on bases. We do not enter the
arena of determining what forces are required. That is an operational
plans decision more than it is a resources decision.
Mr. SIKES. There are some questions which this committee will have
about base structure and utilization, particularly with regard to SAC
coastal locations.
This, I take it, is more flexible than some other features of your
program?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir. We anticipate and are aware of the commit-
tee's concern in this area and are prepared to answer the questions.
Mr. DAVIS. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. SIKES. Proceed.
Mr. LONG. Where do you stand with respect to your base utilization
decisions ? Are the base realinement actions which have been announced
based upon the force levels allowed in the fiscal year 1974 budget ?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir. In conjunction with the 1974 budget, the de-
cisions, the force levels that were postulated are the forces on which the
base posture is based.
Mr. LONG. To the extent that the Department of Defense's current
long-range program calls for a further reduction in your forces in
the outyears, will further base realinements be possible?
20-632 0 - 73 - 4
Colonel REED. Sir, it completely depends on the nature of the forces
and the residual requirements, but it would be possible if the force
reductions were significant.
Mr. LONG. If there are any further reductions in forces in the long-
range plan, or if forces are reduced below that anticipated in the
current long-range plan, would the criteria which you have developed
apply to future base reductions?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. LoNG. You would not have to change your criteria ?
Colonel REED. No, sir.
Mr. LONG. Have you examined all of the projects in the fiscal 1974
request to be sure that none are at weak installations ?
Colonel REED. Sir, all the projects are required, and there are no
weak installations within the Air Force inventory. Each installation
supports its portion of the force and is a required asset.
Mr. NIHOLAs. To the extent that there may be future force reduc-
tions as a result of budgetary or other constraints, and you do have to
reduce bases in order to realine your forces properly, do you have now
identified, or can you apply your criteria in a reasonable way so as to
indicate, which of the bases you have 'at 'this time may be firmer bases
and which may be weaker bases?
Colonel REED. No, sir. It really is not possible to apply criteria in
the abstract against the base structure and determine which might be
the next to close, because the decision has to stem from a force decision,
and we can assume almost any force posture and all relating or inter-
relating pieces; in other words, you can stipulate a drop in strategic
forces, but what are the next pieces as they relate to training, mili-
tary airlift, and tactical airlift ?
All of these things have to be weighed. It may very well be that a
reduction of a strategic mission, at a base will make that a prime
candidate for the assignment of a tactical mission. If we were to bring
forces back from Europe, for example.
So it would be not very profitable to exercise the myriad of options
we could, or assumptions we could, make.
Mr. NICHOLAS. No, but on the other hand, in programing military
constructions requests, it would seem you would be well advised to
be aware of which were some of the weaker bases in each of the com-
mands. Having your criteria in hand, and knowing what the assets
and limitations of each of the bases are, you could avoid wasting con-
struction dollars.
In fact, you have reassured the committee from year to year that
you are not programing projects at installations which are expected to
be closed. How can you do that ?
Colonel REED. I think we continue to assure the committee that we
do not have any projects at installations for which we have plans to
significantly alter the mission or close the mission, and those are true
facts. At this time, we have no plans to further make any major
reductions or alterations in missions or close bases.
Again, sir, it would be difficult to provide any list that would be
meaningful because the assumptions that we would use in making the
list might change the following day. So therefore we are cognizant
that certain bases have need for concern as far as encroachment and so
forth, and these things are considered; however, to term these as weak
bases in the sense that they may not be needed or the next base to close,
I think is an unfair connotation to the base.
HOSPITAL, WARREN AIR FORCE BASE, WYO.
Mr. TALCOTT. May I ask then about the hospital development at
Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. TALCOTTrr. I understand that the ABM missile site is not going
to be located there, yet we are developing a hospital in Wyoming.
Colonel REED. F. E. Warren, sir, supports a strategic missile Minute-
man wing and strategic missiles being a major element of our strategic
defense, there is no envisioned change in that mission into the future.
It will support the F. E. Warren mission.
Deployment of the Safeguard missile was a separate issue and
not one which we were, I think, involved in at that point.
Mr. TALCOTr. Were you not considering the hospital development
at the time you were considering the Safeguard development?
Colonel REED. I think the hospital, as I remember it, having been
in contact with these programs since 1966, has been in the back of the
minds of our medical people for many years, since it is an 1880 build-
ing or thereabouts. Replacement was predicated on the Minuteman
missiles.
Mr. TALCO-TT. Not on Safeguard ?
Colonel REED. That is correct.
Colonel BAIRD. That is correct; on the Minuteman.
Mr. TALCOTT. General Reilly, I have a couple of questions.
LAND UTILIZATION
I was impressed by your statement on land use planning. You
referred to a recently-established multidisciplined capability. Could
you expand on this and tell us how it works?
Mr. SIKES. What is it?
Mr. TALCOTT. Yes.
General REILLY. Mr. Talcott, we have found that land use planning,
both on the base and around the base, and our relationship to the
community from an economic, social, and environmental standpoint,
has become much more complicated, much more encompassing than
ever in the past. We just do not work in isolation, or should not, at
our bases any more.
This has brought us into a number of areas that require a special
expertise. Within my particular directorate we have found that we
do have people who have experience in landscape architecture, urban
planning, and various engineering disciplines, especially those related
to environmental protection.
What we have done is establish a small group, I am not talking of
more than 10 to a dozen people, who bring all of these disciplines
together. Our objective will be to analyze the problems that are facing
our bases, the encroachment problem on the outside, the siting of our
facilities within the base, and our relationship to the communities.
The environmental protection issue alone is bringing us much closer
and involving us to a much greater degree with the cities and the
regions in which we are located.
Mr. SIKES. Tell us about some of the ways in which you accomplish
this? Do you have meetings with community leaders? What do
you do?
General REILLY. Sir, we are going to do several things.
First, we are going to insure that we implement this policy in the
field, that it gets to our bases, to our commanders, so that all of our
bases can be addressing these problems, their relationships with the
communities, in some kind of a standard way.
Mr. TALcrr. Is there a directive from you telling your people to go
out and talk with the planning commissions of the cities, the boards
of supervisors, the city councilmen and the adjoining landowners ?
General REILLY. Yes. We will be doing more and more of that. We
are working right now in some areas in helping the States enact the
necessary zoning legislation.
For example, in Texas we found that law does not exist for enabling
legislation under which zoning ordinances can be enacted to protect
the land around some of our bases, both for the benefit of the Air
Force as well as the community.
So we are assisting in introducing into the State legislature the
necessary bills that will bring that about.
In the noise area we are trying to refine our criteria so that it is
much more realistic. When we first went into our compatible use zone
concept, we were thinking in terms of a rectangular area around the
bases. We found that must be refined now. We must have new ap-
proaches to determine the impact of aircraft noise on the com-
munity.
Mr. TALCOrr. It seems to me that you have to have a reversal of
several attitudes. As you have said, the Air Force is not an island.
You have to cooperate and coordinate your activities with the civilian
community, and they have to do likewise. The sooner you can elimi-
nate the distinction between the blue-suiters and the civilians, the
better it is going to be for both.
Mr. SIKEs. I had thought you were doing quite a bit of this before
now. What is new about it ?
General REILLY. We have been doing it, Mr. Chairman, but we have
not had the overall policy established and the refinements we would
like to have.
Mr. TALCOTT. They have been doing it in sort of a passive way. But
I think it has to be a little bit more aggressive.
At the present time you find a lot of communities which are sort of
nibbling at military installations. They see a big piece of land out
there and say, gee, this would be great for a racetrack or a community
center or some other kind of facility.
That attitude has to be changed. We have to get the zoning around
the base to prevent not only the nibbling, but also to make the facility
more usable, zones such as air travel zones, noise zones, this sort of
thing.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. TALCOTT. So that there will not be this problem of encroach-
ment in the future. I judge from this, Mr. Chairman, that there is a
little bit more aggressiveness, here, and more effort to really get out
into the community and meet some of these problems head on, rather
than just being prepared to fight them when they develop. This is dif-
ferent from post to post or airfield to airfield or commander to com-
mander.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. TALCOTr. I think it has to be a more general and uniform policy
throughout all the airbases.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11508 SURVEYS
Has the Air Force had any serious problems as a result of the Ex-
ecutive Order 11508 surveys?
General REILLY. No, sir.
Mr. TALCOTT. That is the directive telling GSA to check over all
installations to see if there is any underutilization or excess land.
General REILLY. Yes.
Our installations have been surveyed by three groups, by the Gen-
eral Services Administration, by teams working out of the Office of
Secretary of Defense, and by our own in-house Air Force teams.
We have had no major problems. Quite a bit of land has been
found that could be made available for other uses without in any
way varying our mission.
Mr. TALCOTT. So generally you have been in accord with this rather
dramatic new policy to try to make sure that our Federal facilities
are properly utilized ?
General REILLY. Yes.
There have been over 160 surveys accomplished at our bases; some
20,000, almost 30,000 acres of land have already been reported to the
Congress for disposal.
Mr. TALCOTT. For the record, this is distinct from the base closures
and consolidation programs?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, that is correct.
LAND EXCHANGE
Mr. TALCorT. Why do you feel that you have not had more success
with land-swapping under the Air Installations Compatible Use Zone
program?
General REILLY. Really, we have not worked too hard at the land-
swapping approach. We have been working principally in obtain-
ing the necessary local zoning which would accomplish the desired
end. We are having success with this.
That is our first approach, to achieve the compatible use through
zoning; if that is not successful, through exchanging land. Of course
we need authorization to do that.
Mr. TALCOTT. Would you supply for the record any place where you
have had any success in convincing the nearby property owners, or
community owners, to rezone or swap land for air zoning?
General REILLY. Yes.
[The information follows:]
EXAMPLE OF AIm INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONE PROGRAM
Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.--On May 8, 1973, the county of Oklahoma passed
a capital improvement bond issue in the amount of $10,800,000 for the purchase
and removal of 836 houses, an elementary school, and the purchase of 32 vacant
tracts of land located within the air installations compatible use zone (AICUZ)
for the north-south runway. (There were 88.7 percent of the 90,000 votes in favor
of the land issue.)
Offutt Air Force Base, Nebr.-Approximately May 29, 1973, the city council
of Bellevue, Nebr., rezoned the area off the northwest end of the northwest-south-
east runway to prevent a developer from constructing residential facilities within
the AICUZ at that end of the runway.
General REILLY. In fact, Oklahoma City has made a very dramatic
move.
Mr. CROCKETr. The Oklahoma City action was not a land swap or
land exchange.
General REILLY. YOU are talking about exchanges ?
Mr. TALCOrr. There can be trades of land for air uses, which might
be very useful trades or swaps for you.
Will the legislation which is being proposed in fiscal year 1974 to
allow the military to exchange land without specific authorization help
in your land use program?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it certainly will.
It will permit us to move ahead on a much more timely basis as op-
posed to waiting for the annual authorization cycles. It will also per-
mit us to use surplus land of other Federal agencies being excessed by
GSA.
Mr. TALCOTT. How is the Congress going to keep track of all these
things ?
How are we going to exercise our congressional mandate, or respon-
sibility, or prerogatives, to make sure the executive branch does not
usurp all of our functions ?
General REILLY. The title 10 proceedings, of course, where every-
thing with a value of over $50,000 must be reviewed and approved by
the Congress will continue. There will still be that check by the Con-
gress.
Mr. TALOTTr. Are you trying to steal any of our prerogatives away
from us so that we are nonfunctioning in this field ?
General REILLY. No, sir.
Mr. TALCOTT. I want to be aware of that if I can; I do not want you
to do any of those kinds of things.
Mr. SIKES. I think, possibly, we had better suspend until 2 o'clock.
Mr. TALCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take your sugges-
tion.
USE OF LAND FOR PARKS
Mr. SIKES. May I ask this one question on land utilization before
we begin the subject of depot utilization, which we will at 2 o'clock.
Has the Air Force given thought to making land available for play-
grounds and parks, land which is not surplus to your requirements,
land for which you anticipate a future use but which is not currently
required ?
I am thinking of whether this type of land can be used jointly
for playgrounds, parks, et cetera, under the sponsorship of nearby
communities. In that way their requirements for recreational space
could be met, and base property used which now has no specific use.
Has that sort of thing been given any careful study ?
Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir.
Such use is one of the items that has proved to be acceptable to the
GSA, in the conduct of its surveys. They have agreed, readily, where
53
we have been able to share use with the States and communities. A case
in point was the survey of Myrtle Beach AFB, S.C. There have been
other instances in which such uses were accepted as plausible reasons
for our holding onto the land.
Mr. SIKE . I do think that it has very good potential. I am glad
to hear you have gone as far into it as you have.
Mr. CROCKETr. Yes, sir. That is one of the prime things we are look-
ing at. When we have an area, for example, that is not specifically
required for family housing on a base until fiscal 1978, we are going to
have a long-term military need for it, and it is on the fringe of the
base, we might very well use it for this purpose.
Mr. SIKEs. If you will, provide for the record some illustrations of
what has been done.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force continuously reviews its land requirements as a matter of
policy. As a result of these reviews and the interest of the general public nu-
merous areas on many installations have been made available for outdoor rec-
reation and activities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping. Currently
there are 28 outgrants in effect covering 1,705 acres for public parks and recrea-
tion. In addition, ten installations are periodically open to the public for hunting,
13 installations for fishing, and 15 installations for general outdoor recreation.
The Air Force tries to limit most recreation on its installations to "dispersed
activities" such as hunting, fishing, hiking, et cetera, as opposed to permitting
specific areas for public use where facilities could be constructed that may inter-
fere with base missions. The primary considerations in permitting land for
public use are safety and mission interference. No land can be made available
where the general public will be exposed to safety hazards. This is especially
true at our test bases where new weapons systems are continually developed
and tested, and new dangers or mishaps could arise during the various stages of
development and test.
Mr. TALCOTr. I would like to suggest you be a little chary. I had an
experience in one place where the military permitted the community
to construct a racetrack on their property. Then GSA came along. They
looked down on the topographic map and they saw a racetrack, they
said "No military use." So it is going to be excessed.
The military says, "Gee, you have us dead to rights, we allowed the
community to use this -as a racetrack." We could get it back in a future
mobilization, but by then it will have been excessed and the Army, in
this case, will not have it any more.
So I think you have to be careful. One of the toughest things to
close up when you need to is 'a kids' camp.. If you have a lot of kids
around there and you need that for a legitimate military facility, you
are in trouble when you try to run the kids off.
Mr. SIKES. The sort of joint use operation that I had in mind, and
which I assumed you are doing, would envisage playgrounds, park
areas.
Mr. CROCKFYr. State parks.
Mr. SIKEs. I did not necessarily mean semipublic facilities such as a
racetrack. A playground or a recreation area is, of course, something
without permanent structures, in fact very few, if any, structures, that
could speedily be turned back to military use. Whereas a racetrack,
has, at least, semi-permanent facilities and some problems about get-
ting rid of them.
Mr. TALCOrr. Just a track.
Could I just suggest one other thing ?
One of the things I have noticed most in the change from a wartime
Army or Air Force to a peacetime force is the need for leisure time,
meaningful leisure time activities. When the guys are not fighting a
war, they do not have the pressures of really fighting a war and are
not geared up for that every day. It seems to me your requirements for
leisure time activities or programs are going to be a great deal accel-
erated in the next year or so.
I do not see this acceleration in your budget; gymnasiums, theaters,
hobby shops for doing peacetime work, not only overseas but here
in the United States.
I think some of your base commanders are going to have some prob-
lems with the morale of your personnel if you do not provide facilities
and programs to keep them occupied.
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Very well, gentlemen, we will reconvene at 2 o'clock.
NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM
Mr. SIKES. Before we leave the subject of land utilization I think it
well to call attention to a program that has been in operation for a
number of years which deals with the development and utilization of
the resources of the reservations themselves-timber, game and fish
resources, and recreational opportunities.
Would you tell us something about the additional progress that
has been made in recent months under that program?
I think generally the Air Force has made good use of the legislation
that is on the statute books in this area.
General REILLY. The Air Force natural resources program has been
expanded and improved during the past fiscal year. Our policy is to
manage overall natural resources for the greatest net public benefit.
First priority is given to the protection of irreplaceable resources such
as rare and endangered species, wetlands, and historical and cultural
sites. Second priority is given to areas capable of supporting concen-
trated outdoor recreation such as picnicking, camping, and winter and
water sport sites. The remaining area is managed on a multiple-use
basis for fish and wildlife, forage and timber production.
Fifty-two installations have updated fish and wildlife plans and 51
have submitted outdoor recreation plans as a result of new guidance
published last year. Following the evaluation and approval of these
plans by technically qualified personnel, installations will be encour-
aged to enter into cooperative agreements with their respective States.
In accordance with 16 United States Code 670 these resources will be
made available to the general public when such use is compatible with
the military mission. The amount of use will be based upon the capacity
of land to support such use without degradation of environmental
qualities. Installations have also been requested to support the 1973
"National Hunting and Fishing Day" as a means of acquainting the
general public with the resources that are available.
Forest management continues to be an important program on instal-
lations which have this resource. During fiscal year 1972, receipts of
over $420,000 were received from the sale of forest products. These
receipts resulted from the application of forestry practices necessary
to achieve a sound multiple-use management program.
AFTERNOON SESSION
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF DEPOT MODERNIZATION PROJECTS
Mr. SIKEs. There have been various estimates aired with respect to
savings to be achieved from the Air Force Logistics Command's depot
modernization program. Last year we discussed at some length the
validity of some of the economic analyses for projects in this program.
I believe, as a result, the Air Force has changed somewhat its meth-
odology in conducting these studies. Is that correct ?
Colonel MORROw. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir; it is true that the Air Force
has incorporated some changes in methodology that were recom-
mended by the investigative staff of this committee during last year's
hearings.
Mr. SIKEs. Tell us something about these changes and what you are
doing.
Colonel MoRRow. Substantive changes have been made primarily
in three areas. One area, whereas in the past we had claimed reductions
in insurance rates as a consequence of improved facilities, that reduce
risks to material and personnel, and where we were improving the
safety environment, we no longer do this. We were advised by the com-
mittee investigative staff that it was inappropriate for the Government
to claim credit for insurance reduction.
Another area is where we had claimed residual value of facilities
after completion of an economic life of 25 years, we no longer claim
these. We realized, and so did the investigative staff, these do still have
value but they feel it is inappropriate. We no longer do that.
A third area which was probably the most significant; we now dis-
count our dollars to the current year, the year in which the appropria-
tions are made, which does, in effect, reduce somewhat the benefits we
claim.
Mr. SIKES. What is your present estimate of the total savings as a
result of this program ?
Colonel MoRRow. We now estimate and project we will have $1.2
billion in hard factual savings as a consequence of the $390 million
investment. That is somewhat less than the $1.4 billion that we re-
ported to the committee last year, partly as a result of this change
in methodology, partly as a result of the decrease in the military con-
struction program, and in a small sense as a result of the decrease in
maintenance workload. There are benefits from other efforts such as
fiscal year 1971 forerunners and the redistribution of equipment that
will be in addition to the $1.2 billion.
Mr. SIKEs. Do you think it is a realistic assessment, that you are
going to save that kind of money ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir, it is. We believe it is conservative, Mr.
Chairman. We think. and the committee's staff has agreed with us in
the past that while other savings are there, these are the ones that we
can factually quantify. There are also those unquantified, that we
realize as a consequence of improved reliability and better quality of
maintenance repair we will be effecting.
Mr. SIKES. Give us a detail of the savings estimate for the record.
[The information follows:]
Anticipated present value of benefits from the $390 million proposed for
investment under the 5-year program are very conservatively calculated at $1.2
billion. Those calculated benefits are discounted at 10 percent per year over the
economic lives of the investments to obtain their present value. They do not
include intangible benefits. For example, increased quality in work performed
will result in more reliable weapon systems, decreased stock levels, decreased
transportation and decreased maintenance and supply personnel requirements in
both the field and at the depots. However, since this is generally not quantifiable,
benefits of this type are not included in the $1.2 billion. Another benefit not
claimed is when depot flow times are reduced but the procurement of the com-
ponent or aircraft affected will not be reduced. In this case, of course, more
assets become available to field units at no additional cost to the Government.
Details of the $1.2 billion are shown below :
Dollars in
millions
Personnel ----------------------------------------------------- $533.3
Operating --------------------------------------------------------- 548.3
One time--------------------------------------------------------- 118. 2
Total ------------------------------------------------------ 1, 199. 8
Mr. TALCOTT. They complied with the investigative staff position
on not counting what would ordinarily be saved by reducing the
amount of insurance. I think this was based on the fact that the Gov-
ernment is self-insured and therefore they are not entitled to take
credit for reduction in insurance rates or anything of that sort. I think
it is very important that these changes do reflect less risk to the Gov-
ernment, and that is very beneficial. Whether or not they get dollar
savings that would be related to premiums or compared to premium
savings, nevertheless we have a reduction in the risk of a loss, and that
is important. I think we should take credit for it whether we deduct it
in dollars and cents or not.
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir; the investigative staff agreed there was
some intangible benefit that would accrue. We had been claiming about
one-tenth of 1 percent of our benefits were in this area of reduced insur-
ance premiums. But we agreed with the investigative staff that it was
probably inappropriate to classify those as reduced insurance rates
since we really don't pay insurance.
IN-HOUSE VERSUS CONTRACT WORKLOAD
Mr. SIKES. What ratio of work do you plan to do in-house and by
contract for fiscal 1974 ?
Colonel MoRRow. We estimate that we will continue at about 60 per-
cent of the total depot level maintenance workload being accomplished
in-house and the balance on contract.
Mr. SIKES. That is about the same ratio as at present ?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir. About 57 or 58 percent at the present time,
a slight increase over the years, but we will maintain about 60 percent
of the total.
INTERSERVICE DEPOT REPAIR
Mr. SIKES. Are you increasing or decreasing the amount of work done
on an interservice basis?
Colonel MORROW. We are increasing the amount. Since last year we
have increased the amount of interservice repairs by 25 percent for
those items common to other services.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Mr. SIKES. For what portion of the fiscal year 1974 program will the
Air Force act as construction agent ?
General REILLY. The Air Force will do about 11 percent of its de-
sign under its own supervision and about 5 percent of construction.
Mr. SIKES. How does this compare with previous years?
General REILLY. It is a little less than we had in 1973. We had 18
percent of design and 9 percent of construction.
I might add these figures are consistent with the request we made to
the OSD). Both 1974 and 19i 3 represent a major increase in each area
over what we did in 1972.
Mr. SIKES. Is the Air Force satisfied with these levels?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. We expect it to vary from year to year.
We made a very selective choice of projects and are satisfied with
what has been approved this year.
Mr. SIxEs. Does the Air Force feel that further reductions in the
costs charged by DOD construction agencies are feasible ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, I think the 5 to 6 percent level we
are now being charged is about as far as the agencies can go. I don't
see much reduction below that level.
INDUSTRIALIZED CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIKES. What do you feel is the likelihood of increased use of
industrial processes in future military construction programs ?
General REILLY. We are experimenting now. We have pilot pro-
grams underway. I frankly think that the advantages inherent in
industrial construction will provide very promising programs in the
future. However, we found at this point in time that industry wasn't
quite as ready for our work as we had presumed. But I do expect ex-
panded use in the future, and based upon the experience we get from
our current program.
Mr. SIKES. Tell me just what it means that industry isn't ready.
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, we found that, for our particular
type of construction, while industrial processes are being used to a
very large extent in industry, they just weren't tuned to meet the
varied requirements of the Air Force. I think our family housing pro-
gram is an example of that. While industrial houses are being built
in great numbers throughout the Nation, our combination of dif-
ferent sizes of houses, different combinations of bedrooms, varying
density factors around the country, just didn't fit into the pattern as
well as we first expected.
Mr. SIKEs. Does that mean that your required standards are un-
reasonable by industry standards ?
General REILLY. No, sir, I don't think so. I think probably the type
of facilities that we are asking for are not being mass produced in
industry at this time. It involves too much change to their production
lines.
Mr. TALCOTT. I am disappointed at that response. The Defense De-
partment is one of the largest landlords in the world and we ought to
be leading the way rather than following what they do in industry. I
just hope there is more emphasis on research, development, and testing
and evaluation to try to develop a better system of building not only
the kind of family housing but the other kinds of buildings we need.
It seems to me we have a responsibility to the taxpayer and to the peo-
58
ple who will live in the housing to develop the best system we possibly
can, rather than just waiting and seeing what private industry does.
We have to lead because we are in a leadership position because of the
large number of units that we do construct and own.
Mr. SIKES. What did you learn in the past fiscal year from your own
R. & D. in construction management ?
General REILLY. Would you restate that ?
Mr. SIKEs. Have you learned anything of significance in recent
months in your own research and development into construction
management?
General REILLY. Are you speaking, Mr. Chairman, of management
of construction, or the construction processes ?
Mr. SIKES. Both.
TURNKEY CONSTRUCTION
General REILLY. YOU are speaking now probably of the application
of one- and two-step procurement. In our experience with that we have
been extensively using the turnkey approach to construction. We have
used both one- and two-step procurement for well over $100 million
worth of construction in the family housing area. As we mentioned
earlier we hope to have at least $40 million involved in the fiscal 1972
construction under turnkey procedures. We expect in our 1974 family
housing program to apply further the onestep approach, which is
proving to be very promising.
Mr. SIKEs. Have you learned anything from industry in your con-
struction management or construction programs that could be incorpo-
rated into the fiscal 1974 program ? Supply that for the record.
General REILLY. I would have to review that.
[The information follows:]
We are learning from industry with our centrally managed two-step turnkey
fiscal year 1972 industrialized construction program for bachelor housing and
various support facilities. In absence of evaluation data to be obtained upon com-
pletion of the fiscal year 1972 program, we have no plans for specific use of in-
dustrialized techniques in the fiscal year 1974 military construction program.
Experience gained in the procurement of the fiscal year 1972 military family
housing program demonstrated the validity of one-step turnkey as a reliable, cost-
effective procurement method when selectively applied in locations where ad-
equate competition among qualified house builders can be expected. We consider
validation of one-step turnkey significant and intend to utilize this procurement
method in the fiscal year 1974 military family housing program.
Mr. SIKES. For the record, tell us what has been the Air Force's ex-
perience with regard to the use of one- and two-step turnkey proce-
dures and if you concur with the guidelines set out by OSD in this
regard?
[The information follows:]
As you are aware, we have used two-step turnkey procedures to acquire vari-
ous projects in prior year programs. During fiscal year 1973 we awarded two
large contracts and are in the process of awarding a third large contract for
acquisition of approximately $40 million worth of facilities based on industrial-
ized construction techniques and procedures. This dollar volume represents a large
amount of construction being acquired by two-step turnkey procurement proce-
dures for our regular military construction projects. Since these projects are
just now getting underway, we prefer to wait until construction is completed
and then evaluate the end products before proceeding with another large volume
of construction based on two-step procurement procedures. We have not used
one-step turnkey procedures recently for any regular MCP projects, although we
have for several military family housing projects. The guidelines established by
DOD for turnkey projects are realistic and we concur with them.
RELOCATABLE FACILITIES
Mr. SIKES. Tell us what experience you had in obtaining relocatabil-
ity in the various packages in the fiscal 1972 program.
General REILLY. Of our industrial packages in 1972 relocatability
was obtained in two of them. The dormitory and officer's quarters con-
struction we found lent itself very well to relocatability. Also in our
warehouse project at Robins Air Force Base. We found, however, with
the operations, administrations, and training facilities it could not be
economically obtained.
Mr. SIKES. Are you proposing any relocatable facilities in the fiscal
1974 program?
General REILLY. Not relocatable per se, sir, at the present time, al-
though we are continuing to study all approaches to our construction.
Mr. SIKEs. Does the Air Force concur in the OSD instruction with
regard to the use of relocatable structures ?
General REILLY. The DOD instruction of relocatable structures was
staffed with the three services, including the Air Force, and it repre-
sents a coordinated policy.
Mr. SIKES. What is your present situation on three- and four-bed-
room housing in view of the problem of costs ? We hope you are not
going to turn back to two-bedroom housing because of the cost of build-
ing three- and four-bedroom housing.
General REILLY. No, sir, we aren't. As mentioned earlier, our 1974
program is almost exclusively four bedroom and at an increased cost
per unit to $27,500.
Mr. SIHEs. Can you build it for $27,500 ?
General REILLY. We think we can.
Mr. SIXES. It will be close, won't it ?
General REILLY. It will be close but I think we can.
REPORT ON GEORGE AND NORTON AIR FORCE BASES INDUSTRIALIZED HOUSING
Mr. TALCOTT. Could you tell us what stage you are in in your evalua-
tion of the George Air Force Base industrial or modular construc-
tion, whatever you call it ?
General REILLY. There are two projects actually, Mr. Talcott. The
George project, of course, has been complete for some time.
Has the report been completed, Mr. Johnston ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir, it has been completed.
Mr. TALCOTr. Has it been filed with our committee ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I don't think so.
Mr. TALCOTT. Would you have any objection to sharing it with the
committee ?
General REILLY. We will be happy to get that. A part of that proj-
ect was the requirement to develop a detailed report and I think that
has been completed.
As you know, that was a very successful project, and we applied the
basic principles of that project further into the Norton project using
the same factory, going to a fully relocatable single-story house, 250
units. That project is now completed.
[The information follows:]
60
GEORGE AFB
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 200-Unit Family Housing Project at George Air Force Base, California, was
initiated in mid-1970, and was successfully completed in September, 1971. As the
first Department of Defense Industrialized Housing Project, it was the final por-
tion of a three-phase DOD program, initiated in July 1967, to explore the develop-
ment of industrialized housing as a means of reducing military family housing
costs at no sacrifice to dwelling quality or livability features.
The General Electric Company, which was competitively awarded contracts in all
three phases of the program, conducted Phase III at George AFB in joint venture
with the Del E. Webb Corporation. Under the major elements of the joint venture
arrangement, General Electric was responsible for overall program management,
factory housing production, and housing module transportation over the 17 miles
distance from the factory at Apple Valley, California, to the site at George AFB.
Del E. Webb was responsible for all site development work as well as house erec-
tion and finishing at the site.
The Phase III effort was essentially an experimental project which successfully
achieved the following overall objectives:
(1) The Project experience clearly demonstrated that factory-built housing
is technically feasible and operationally practical. Two-hundred
dwelling units, encompassing townhouse, apartment, and single unit
designs, were built and erected four weeks ahead of schedule.
(2) While user evaluation, per se, has yet to be performed, positive
indications of user acceptability and satisfaction have been expressed
by the Air Force prototype review team, the many Base personnel and
their families who have examined the houses, the numerous visitors to
the houses including top management and officials from DOD, the
Congress and HUD, and the representatives of the home building and
material industries who have toured the site. Most importantly, the
overall balance of design and producibility features used in the
dwelling units virtually eliminates any appearance associated with the
factory origin of the houses, and presents to the user the appearance
of a conventionally constructed community.
(3) From an economic point of view, the Project accumulated data and
experience which were used for cost extrapolations to high volume
production. While the experimental nature of the Project does not
directly indicate the unit cost of a mature industrialized housing
system, the data has shown that an average cost reduction in excess of
$1700 per unit can be realized on a yearly production of 2000 houses
via high-volume production optimizations alone. On yearly production
beyond House ~2000, the cost savings will increase to $3000 per unit
due to continuing favorable "learning curve" factors in the factory
and the elimination of start-up costs. Additional unit cost savings
are also expected to accrue as further improvements are made to adapt
the house designs to high-volume production.
In.addition to fulfilling the overall objectives sited above, the Project
accumulated a significant catalogue of experience relative to housing factory
operations, new and innovative processes, module handling, transportation and
erection techniques, and methods for optimizing factory and field operations for
high-volume production systems. Key among the several design and process innova-
tions that were successfully employed to demonstrate the various quality and
production features that can be used in industrialized housing were:
o Steel wall studs
o Cast plaster walls and ceilings
o Honeycomb-plywood floors
o Plastic plumbing
The report summarizes the significant Project accomplishments and lessons learned
in Section 2, discusses the details of the Project as they occurred in Section 3,
and provides a postulated high-volume system based on the George AFB experience
in Section 4. Several photographs of the Project are included throughout the
report, including selected photographs of the factory operations in Appendix D.
61
GENERAL ELECTRIC,
REENTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION,
Philadelphia, Pa., April 14, 1972.
THE 200-UNIT HOUSING PROJECT, GERtGE AIR FORCE BASE, CALIF.-
SUMMARY REPORT
(Contract No. F04609-70-C-0132 For Department of Defense, Office of the As-
sistant Secretary, Installation and Housing and U.S. Air Force Office of
Family Housing, Washington, D.C.)
I. INTRODUCTION
The objective of the George AFB family housing project was to select the com-
bination of modern design, material, construction, and management techniques
that would provide quality housing at the lowest possible cost. Quality considera-
tions were broad, including those factors relating to attractiveness and liveability
as well as to sturdiness, trouble-free operation and low-cost maintenance. Cost
considerations included both the initial cost of construction and the continuing
costs of operation and maintenance. While immediate improvements in construc-
tion cost effectiveness were desired, it was considered equally important to se-
lect approaches that would offer continuing gains, at least offsetting the unusually
rapid rise in such costs which have been experienced in recent years.
The concept was to approach present and future housing needs for military
personnel on a total-system basis. An obviously attractive route to lowering
cost was to turn to mass-production techniques- (that is, the factory-built
house). Too often, past efforts in this direction produced a product that clearly
displayed its origin, entailed high maintenance costs, and lacked the degree of
individuality and finish that gives people pride in their homes and pleasure in
living in them. This unfortunate result had to be avoided. Another problem with
the factory construction approach was that of moving the product to its site.
Movement of complete dwellings entails high cost, plus complexity in scheduling
and regulatory requirements; this approach appeared unsuitable. It was neces-
sary to find 'the desirable 'balance between the cost of transportation and erection
and the size of the house section, or module, that should represent the comple-
tion of the factory effort. The modular approach offered, with sufficiently in-
genious design, the possibility of assembling different house plans by using dif-
ferent mixes of the same basic modules. Site planning was required to lead to a
pleasant, safe, and functional neighborhood, but at the same time to provide for
economical installation of utilities, roadways, and storm drainage. The list of
balances and tradeoffs which had to be considered was long; these are just a few
major examples.
Phase I of the family housing project entailed studies by three different
groups of the potentials of innovative approaches, on a generalized basis-
et cetera, without regard to a specific requirement or site. The General Electric
62
Co.'s participation is reported in reference (1) ; consideration of the problems
of architectural design, manufacturing, and site:engineering showed good pos-
sibilities that a carefully planned and integrated effort could produce a quality
product at reduced cost.
In phase II, a concept was selected, and a demonstration planned around the
fiscal year 1969 increment for the housing program at George Air Force Base,
near Victorville, Calif. This plan called for 200 units in the enlisted housing area,
distributed among the following types :
Type : Amount
3 bedroom townhouses---------------------------------------- 90
4 bedroom townhouses---------------------------------------- 90
2 bedroom fiats--------------------------------------------- 16
4 bedroom single dwellings------------------------------------- 4
The Phase II effort was conducted as a joint venture by the General Electric
Co. and the architectural firm of Hugh Gibbs, FAIA, and Donald Gibbs, AIA.
The end result was a complete set of plans for the site, dwellings, and all con-
struction details, as well as specifications for process development and for the
actual construction project. Subassembly selection was accomplished, and based
on this, the supporting manufacturing facility and production processes were
outlined, as well as the proposed methods of transportation and site erection.
Costs were estimated in detail. An essential concept in planning this part of the
project was to maintain recognition that in itself, the project would be a test
case, requiring careful attention to completeness of data both as estimates and
as actually accrued. The material resulting from the phase II analysis and plan-
ning is presented in detail in reference (2).
The phase III implementation was conducted by a joint venture of the General
Electric Co. and the Del E. Webb Corp. It is the purpose of this report to describe
the activity, report the results as they are presently known, evaluate the per-
formance and resulting product with reference to the projections of phase II, and
estimate the future applicability and growth potential of the chosen approach. It
is further intended that this report bring out the principal aspects of the project,
so that problems and their solution can be seen in relationship to one another.
Figures 1 through 4 show floor plans of each of the dwelling types.
References
(1) "Final Report, Research and Development, Military Family Housing,"
prepared for Department of Defense Family Housing, Contract DACH 15-68-
C00158, GE, Missile and Space Division, and Community Development Division,
December 1967.
(2) "Final Report, Design Development, Prototype Demonstration Family
Housing Project," Department of Defense, Office of Family Housing, Contract
DACH 15-69-C0147, General Electric Re-entry and Environmental Systems Divi-
sion and Hugh Gibbs, FAIA, and Donald Gibbs, AIA, Architects, June 25, 1969.
Figure 1.
I
I I
Four-Bedroom - Single Detached Unit
Figure 2. Two-Bedroom Apartment Units
20-632 0 - 73 - 5
64
_r ----
I II
p .)o..-
STolr To*
Figure , eu-Bedroom Towouse Unit
sut .....0
Trlins FL Sroo rroca
Figure 3. Three-Bedroom Townhouse Unit
--- ------ -----------
I mm
lr mo r }ol
Figure 4. Four-Bedroom Townhouse Unit
65
II. APPROACH
A. Dwelling design
The key to the approach chosen is the maximum use of factory construction.
The primary advantage is that of cost; by proper design, it is possible to have
many operations performed in a repetitive fashion, not only permitting reduc-
tion of time as the skill for that operation improves, but also providing economic
justification for use of special fixturing and tooling for higher efficiencies. A
significant factor also lies in the opportunity to use skill levels lower than
those of the trade journeymen employed in field construction, with consequent
lower rates of pay. Ability to operate in a factory independent of weather is
another asset. (An important point requires expression here--such approaches
as those described herein are in no way aimed at revising the labor structure
of the home construction industry; national housing needs still exceed national
capacity by a considerable margin, and the use of the approaches discussed here
can help fill the gap, as well as provide a valuable feeder route to the higher
skill levels.)
The decision as to how far to go at the factory before moving the resulting
product to the site for assembly and completion covers a large range of choices.
At the lower end of the range of factory accomplishment are panel systems with
separately identifiable structural systems. At the upper end are fully closed
modules-one or more completely equipped rooms in the shape of a box-which
have structural integrity such that they can be easily shipped and handled as
a unit.
Study of this spectrum leads to some interesting observations. The amount of
work performed in the factory is maximized for the closed-module case, not
only in terms of fit-up and assembly, but in terms of interior surface finishes,
which can be fully protected from weather and handling during transportation
and erection.
In terms of the most efficient use of materials from a structural point of
view, neither end of the range is optimum. It is difficult, in the case of panel
and frame construction, to achieve the full efficiency of having the skin or Shell
of the unit serve simultaneously both the structural and weather-protecting
functions. While the panels can provide stiffness, the frame still carries most
of the load, as in conventional construction. Thus, use of material is not mini-
mized. On the other hand, when closed modules are stacked together in a final
building, redundancy of adjacent wall or floor ceiling surfaces is bound to
occur. Again, material usage is not optimum.
A similar consideration exists in the architectural design. Panel and frame
systems allow considerable flexibility of space arrangement, but they tend toward
monotonous exterior appearance. Complete, enclosed modules permit diversity
in stacking arrangements and treatment of external surfaces, but they are
fixed in shape.
Consideration of the logistic aspects of the approaches leads to similar pros
and cons. It is desirable to buy materials in bulk and in quantity. Both in
procurement and in production, attention must be given to material storage,
including raw material and in-process subassemblies. The ability to vary house
design when using already-manufactured components is greatest at the simple
component level, and least at the complex, complete-module level. This con-
sideration is important in relation to efficiencies gained by steady production
rates and the need to be able to "build for inventory" The simpler system per-
mits design variations of the house after manufacture.
Transportation is the remaining area for this type of evaluation. Broadly
speaking, it is cheaper to handle bulk, high-density materials. The handling of
subassemblies below the complete-module level requires auxiliary structure for
proper support, in addition to weather protection.
Figure 5. House Erection On Site
67
In phase II, the final result of all of these interacting considerations was a
decision to manufacture to the "major subassembly" level. An example would
be a 12-foot by 30-foot floor section (half of the unit's floor), with side wall and
partial wall turns at each end. In such a module, sufficient rigidity could be
obtained to provide good structural efficiency; control of planes, angles, and lines
to permit accurate field assembly; versatility for use in several different house
design combinations; and acceptable transport and storage problems. Figure 5
shows such a module. In the townhouse design (forming the largest part of the
George AFB project), two such modules join to form one floor, with a utility
core module fitted in a central position. The core (figure 6) also forms the par-
titions separating the first floor rooms, and contains the powder room. The end-
wall openings are closed by "glazing panels," consisting of a flat section of wall
with emplaced door and window units. The glazing panel provides a means to
accommodate any dimensional variance between the two end-wall turns by
customized joining pieced. It also permits variation of external color and texture.
Two more modules and two glazing panels form the second floor in similar
fashion. The second floor modules contain the partitions forming bedrooms,
baths, and closets. Following their assembly, the roof unit is lowered in place
in two sections and secured. The building is now complete and ready for finishing
work such as taping and spackling of interior wall joints, necessary interior
and exterior painting, closing of roof joint, et cetera.
Thus, a townhouse unit originally consisted of 11 modules, or subassemblies.
Experience, early in the production run, showed that tolerances were being main-
tained sufficiently well to eliminate the adjustability offered by field installation
of the glazing panels. These were thenceforth installed at the factory, reducing
the number of modules shipped for each townhouse unit to seven. As is seen in
the illustration, figure 7, variations are provided in setback so that blocks of two
units each can be offset in single, central, or echelon fashion to provide variety
of appearance to the 6-unit buildings. Coupled with the variation in clustering
provided by the site layout, typical row-house regimentation does not appear.
The major decisions regarding fabrication techniques were as follows:
Floor fabrication.-Use of sandwich construction was chosen where a resin-im-
pregnated paper honeycomb layer is bonded by synthetic resin to a top and bot-
tom layer of plywood, forming a composite structure 6 inches thick. (This type
of fabrication has been used in aircraft structures in recent years; in wood or
metal, -it provides excellent structural strength and rigidity with minimum
weight.) The first-floor ceiling/second-floor floor was filled to a %-inch depth
with sand, to absorb and deaden sound transmission. Figure 8 shows typical
floor construction.
Figure 6.
Core Module
't r
~P ~~
~B~L.1.. ; I
', r & j~"
George Air Force Bose site plan
o SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
* APARTMENT UNITS
* TOWNHOUSES
Micro-neighborhoods
m le
Figure 7. George Air Force Base Site Plan
Honeycomb
Figure 8. Typical Floor Construction
kraft paper or board
door. panels, partitions, etc.
71
Wall fabrication.-Rolled steel frame members were used, in the form of
channel-shaped members of 16-gage galvanized steel, of the same exterior di-
mensions as ordinary 2 x 4's. The slightly higher cost was offset by the advan-
tage gained in rigidity, stability, and dimensional accuracy of such framing.
(Overall structural design was selected to be able to withstand earthquakes.)
All frame joints were welded, strips of metal lath were attached to anchor
the plaster, and then the entire frame was lowered into a 1/2-inch bed of plaster
on a flat table. Although freshly mixed, a special plaster formulation cured
sufficiently in 30 minutes so that the entire wall panel could be lifted from the
casting table and moved on for further assembly. It should be noted that outlet
boxes for all electrical connections were welded in place in the frame before
insertion in the plaster. Figure 9 shows the plaster bed being prepared to receive
the wall frame hanging from the crane to the right.
Roof fabrioation.-Sets of wooden trusses were sheathed with plywood and
the upper surface covered with asphalt shingles. This conventional roof unit
was then plaster-coated on the underside by the same casting technique, to form
the ceiling of the second-floor rooms. Two roof sections made up the roof for each
house unit. The casting of the plaster ceiling is shown in figure 10.
Figure 9. Work Station C1 Wall Casting
Figure 10. Work Station D2 - Ceiling Casting
73
The advantages of the cast-plaster technique are the resulting solidity, strength,
and appearance, as well as freedom from intermediate joints and from the
"nail-popping" so often encountered with dry-wall construction. Yet at the same
time, the materials are those well known to the construction industry and are
available in bulk form at reasonable prices.
Mechanical systems.-Another essential feature of the design is the arrange-
ment of all mechanical and service systems in the central utility "chase." ' The
chase is a narrow, rectangular shaft built as part of the first-floor core module.
The core also contains the powder room, enclosure for washer and dryer with
furance/air cooler suspended above, and range hood and kitchen cabinets. The
chase extends the full height of the first floor, connecting with a continuation
formed at the junction of the two second-floor subassemblies, thus passing on
through to the attic space. All water supply, drains, venting, and heating and
ventilating duct "trees" were assembled in jigs at the factory, and installed in
the utility core chase. Thus fieldwork was limited to connecting to the preas-
sembled utility manifolds in the crawl space, connecting all plumbing and ap-
pliances in or adjoining the core, connecting air ducts emplaced in the roof struc-
ture to supply the second-floor rooms, and installing the roof terminations of
stacks, vents, and the single plumbing vent in the false chimney. The use of
plastic piping for all pumbing systems, except hot water represented another sig-
nificant innovation, speeding factory assembly and field alinement and connec-
tion. (CPVC plastic pipe was used for hot water later in the run.)
The only systems extending beyond the core and chase were the electrical wir-
ing, outlets, and fixtures emplaced in the module walls and the television and
telephone circuits. Connections between these modules and the chase were made
in the field, using connectors rather than the more expensive junction boxes.
Flats and single dwellings.-Very similar approaches were followed in these
units. The two-bedroom flats, arranged in two, two-story units centered on com-
mon outside stairway and storage units, each consisted of three floor-wall-parti-
tion subassemblies plus two end-closure panels. In the case of the four-bedroom
single dwellings, smaller subassemblies mounted on a concrete pad were used.
Fifteen modules, plus the roof, comprised the dwelling proper.
Improvements.-During the early phases of the demonstration program, design
review and value engineering techniques were applied to determine more efficient
ways to satisfy the design requirements. This activity resulted in a number
of changes in approach being introduced, with some retained and others rejected
after evaluation. Examples are as follows:
(a) Elimination of glazing panels-incorporated.
(b) Use of CPVC instead of copper for the hot water system-incorporated.
(), Elimination of lath as an attachment method for plaster to steel studs;
replaced by a series of loops roll punched into the studs-incorporated.
(d) Shingle roof replaced by GE silicone roof, having 30-year life-incorpo-
rated on the four single units.
(e) Joist floor used on several units to obtain a direct cost and performance
comparison with the stressed-skin/honeycomb composite floor-incorporated.
B. Community planning and site engineering
In terms of total quality and cost, the same careful attention was given to these
areas of the project, as was directed to the design and construction of the dwelling
units themselves. Overall project orientation and density distribution were care-
fully worked out to make use of the outlook over the Mojave Valley and, coupled
with the variability of building design (setbacks, etc.), to avoid the sterility
of a conventional rowhouse community. Buildings were grouped in clusters, or
"microneighborhoods," to gain both esthetic and social functioning values (e.g.,
play areas, tree-shaded areas, etc.). Figure 7 shows the arrangement.
In site engineering, full use was made of modern materials and methods, such
as plastic (ABS) pipe instead of cast iron or vitrified clay for underground
services. ABS pipe offers less flow resistance and has higher strength, thus per-
mitting smaller line sizes. High-pressure gas distribution using PVC plastic pipe
also permitted smaller line sizes, and present-day sheating for power and com-
munication cabling permits its underground placement. Surface access points
for sewer cleanout replaced conventional, more costly manholes. Water distribu-
tion systems were optimized to provide adequate domestic, firefighting, and irriga-
tion sprinkler supply with minimum cost.
S'"Chase 'n'. * * * 3. A hollowed out groove for drainpipes in a wall, etc. * * * " Web-
ster's New World Dictionary).
74
Moderate adjustment of contours made possible the use of existing terrain to
achieve a distributed storm drainage pattern, thus eliminating the need for
street drains and piping, and gaining better ground water recharge.
C. Construction method
1. The factory
The characteristics of the manufacturing facility, as analyzed in phase II,
depend on the number and type of operations to be performed, the rate of pro-
duction, and the degree of stability or fluctuation of production rate. The opera-
tions to be performed depend, in turn, on the manufactured level at which
incoming material is received, compared with the manufactured level at which
it will leave. Economically, these levels depend on the geographical relationship
of the factory to material sources and to the erection site, or sites, among other
factors previously discussed.
The following guidelines were used in planning the materials flow and plant
layout :
Supply of materials in large quantities to the field factory in dense, shippable
forms.
Require minimum handling of pieces needed by a specific component.
Eliminate chances for human error.
Carry the product as close to its highest "value state" as possible under these
controlled factory conditions.
Corollaries of these are:
Minimize requirements for worker skill and supervision.
Move the job to the worker, maximizing the use of his time to perform his
particular manufacturing operations.
Provide working conditions essential to good performance: Shelter, comfort,
and transporation.
Underlying general principles were to plan in terms of emulating the activities
of the supplier to the construction industry, rather than the field construction
industry itself, and to buy instead of making those components already deriving
the benefits of factory operation, when economically preferable.
The desirability of having the factory close to the erection site led to the con-
cept of a mobile factory, possibly operating as a satellite to a more permanently
based "feeder" factory. In phase II, this concept was considered in a trailer-
mounted plan, where dropable side panels and trailer beds could be linked to
form the working floor, and an air-inflated structure would serve as weather
protection.
This concept was not actually employed in the phase III demonstration pro-
gram. Mobile facility design problems would have been costly to implement
experimentally, and labor availability and stability would have been difficult to
achieve. Since it had already been planned to do warehousing and wall frame
welding at an available facility in Apple Valley, 17 miles from George AFB, the
decision was made to establish the entire factory at that location.
A key element relating to the type of factory operation planned was that of
establishing satisfactory union relations. The Del E. Webb Corp. (who had con-
tracted to supply the factory work force under GE technical direction) and the
carpenters, plumbers, and electricians locals reached an agreement covering rate
75
structures and factory work assignments. Under this agreement, good relations
were maintained and few problems encountered. This was largely due to the
positive and cooperative attitude of the unions and their trade coordinators. The
history of the labor relationships throughout the project bore out the keynote
expressed by Clarence Briggs, general representative of the Carpenter's Interna-
tional, at the groundbreaking ceremony: "Speaking on behalf of the several
unions represented here today, I want everyone present to know, we are com-
pletely in accord with this special project * * *. We further join the use of mod-
ern factory procedures to create such housing * * *. It will be our intentions to
do everything within our powers to assist in having a smooth running factory,
movement of materials to the jobsite, and finally, it is our hope this will prove
to be an erection project that will work out all the problems and prove this type
of housing feasible, adequate, and attractive, thereby leading to many other simi-
lar projects around the country."
To the two existing buildings at Apple Valley, three more were added, one of
which - as constructed with ease of dismantling in mind, the thought now having
turned to the idea of a relocatable, rather than mobile, factory. All were erected
on concrete pads, which turned out to be desirable in terms of providing dimen-
sional stability to such fixtures as the plaster-casting tables. Quonset-type struc-
tures were originally considered, but rejected in favor of straight sided, ware-
house-type buildings, which were more readily available. Being straight sided,
more working space with adequate overhead clearance was available. At the
same time, it was becoming evident that the A-frame and jib-crane approach to
handling materials and subassemblies was going to be inadequate, and that
traveling cranes would be necessary. The Pascoe buildings were chosen because
they also provide the necessary load-bearing capabilities and clearances in their
structure.
The location of the buildings, the operations contained in each, and the flow
of materials is shown in figure 11. While generally satisfactory, much was
learned that will lead to improvement in future projects, as will be discussed
later. The overall facility was planned with the capacity of one housing unit per
day, on a single 8-hour shift, 5-day week, with support of a small second shift,
and a three-shift operation on wall frame welding (due to equipment and space
limitations). This capacity was easily met; in fact, the rate was doubled to two
units per day during the latter half of the program.
The major purchased subassembly was the honeycomb floor; these units were
vendor-manufactured and shipped to the factory as complete assemblies.
Another significant decision was the granting of approval to have the house-
hold appliances provided as contractor-furnished rather than Government-fur-
nished equipment. (These included the hot water heaters, kitchen ranges, re-
frigerators, disposers, and dishwashers.) This was contingent on the provision
of General Electric appliances meeting or exceeding the quality of the planned
Government-furnished equipment, and at the same cost. This represented an
important savings, since the appliances could be installed at the factory, thus
eliminating one or more cycles of handling, warehousing, and shipping, thereby
saving associated cost and paperwork, and greatly reducing handling damage
or loss.
TONIKAN ROAD
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INDUSTRIALIZED HOUSING FACILITY
INSULA- ASOF MARCH 25, 1971
ION I)APPLE VALLEY CALIFORNIA
FLOOR
STORAGE'
1I\
TEMPORARY STORAGE EMPLOYEES
FOR COMPLETED MODULES PACKING AREA
IlI
PLYWOOD
_ - - | Cl gG- -E2 T
SCAST PLASTER WALLS TRUSS TRUSS I
SI I 7 / _/ .STORAGE STORAGE 1
ALLS PAINT
SoSTORAGE 7 I
P... THRU P STEEL I FRAME 0
&P21 WINDOWS
IINGS al rn.
WALL WELDING
PIPING SUBASSY,
WIRING SUBAMY
WALL CASTING
STAIR ASSY.
CORE ASY.
GLAZING PANEL ASSY
PAINTING
ROOF FABRICATION
CEILING CASTING
CEILING PAINT
DUCT WORK
FLOOR VINYL & LAYOUT
PARTY WALL CASTING
WALL ERECTION & CONN.
SHEAR PANELS & SIDING
GYPBOARD APPLICATION
CORNER BEADTAPE & SPACKLE
WALL VINYL
SHELVING
FRAMES DOOR & HARDWARE
BASE MOLDING
BATH FINISH
KITCHEN CABINETS
PICK-UP WORK & MISC
INSULATION
INSTALL PLUMBING
INSTALL WIRING
REWORK
Figure 11. Factory Layout and List of Work Stations
77
2. Transportation
The transportation system chosen consisted of a set of 15 open-frame trailers,
1 fitted to handle core assemblies, 4 for roof assemblies, and 5 each for the
10-foot and 12-foot wide modules. A single tractor was provided initially, and a
second added later. A stake body truck served the movement of miscellaneous
material. The size of the trailer fleet was based on turnaround time at factory
and site and road time. Mounting and tiedown features were incorporated, as
well as ballasting to provide stability. All State highway regulations were com-
plied with. Figure 12 shows a second-floor module being transported to the site.
3. Site preparation, creation and completion
Site preparation was planned and conducted for the entire project at one time,
including roads, all grading, utilities, and foundations. Poured-concrete founda-
tions with center steel beams were used for the townhouse buildings, concrete
pillars, and steel beams for the two-story apartment units, and concrete slabs
for the single dwellings. Two utility trench networks were used, one for water,
sewer, and gas, and one for electricity, telephone, and television. It was originally
planned to ase surface assembly on utility networks, lowering into the trench
after assembly. Poor slope-holding characteristics of the local soil made this
impractical at this site.
A single large crane, with appropriate spreader and sling assemblies for the
various modules, was used to lift units from the trailers and place them in
position.
In addition to field completion on the dwelling units as previously discussed,
the remaining site work consisted of installing street lights, final cleanup, seeding,
and landscaping.
Fip-are 12. ModiilP Fnr iilo 16,-,,. . _..
79
D. Organization
In organizing the joint venture between the General Electric Co. and the Del E.
Webb Corp., the division of responsibilities was as follows: General Electric-
Program management; housing production; transportation, factor to site; proj-
ect evaluation; all material procurement (except for site development, carports,
storage units).
Del E. Webb-Site preparation; house erection; house finishing; site finishing;
preparation for final inspection.
The overall organizational realtionships within the project are shown in
figure 13.
20-632 0 - 73 - 6
00
APPLE VALLEY
PLANT PROCUREMENT PROJECTION CONST SUP'T
OPERATIONS CONTRACT ADM. N S
MANAGER (GE) (DEWI
(GE (GE) IGEI
MANUFACTURING GE SITE OFFICE
ENGINEERING COORDINATOR MANAGER
PRODUCTION PROJECT
FACILITY ENGINEER
PRODUCTION
CONTROL
(INCL.
RANSPORTATION
Figure 13. Project Organization
81
III. OPERATING EXPERIENCE
A. Factory
The factory erection began in mid-June 1970, and was completed on schedule in
September 1970.
In general, the concepts on which the manufacturing plan was based turned out
to be sound. The breaking down of house construction to a unit-operation level, and
corresponding manning of the work stations, was proven to be practical and
effective. Many difficulties were corrected as operating experience was gained;
most of these had to do with improving materials flow between buildings, and
interim storage procedures, including weather protection.
The work stations were based on providing manageable elements of fabrication
that could produce an item ready for the next level of buildup at each succeeding
station. The list of stations is shown in figure 11.
The initial approach to processing the work at each station was to provide com-
pletely detailed, explicit instructions for each operation to be performed. This
turned out to be cumbersome and time-consuming for the operators. The sub-
stitution of simple, one- or two-line instructions on wall charts at the stations,
plus adequate operator training, provided a much more satisfactory flow of effort.
The initial factory workforce was composed mostly of employees with direct
job-related experience. Attrition and selective replacement progressively led to a
younger and more aggressive work force, but with less job-related experience as
noted below:
Labor force skill, January 1971
Percent
Directly related experience-------------------------------------- 28
Some related experience...........................------------------------------ 24
No related experience------------------------------------------ 48
Evaluations indicated that initial skills and direct job-related experience are
not as important for factory labor as is motivation and the ability to quickly
acquire on-the-job training. The judicious categorization of work tasks and the
simplification of various job elements contributed significantly to the ability to
use inexperienced labor. As an overall factory average, inexperienced personnel
were able to perform a work assignment within the first week, and become pro-
ficient at the job within the second week. The factory force consisted largely of
residents of the local area.
As production proceeded, close observation of all operations revealed instances
where additional powered equipment was called for, such as the use of a powered
screed on the plaster casting line (the tool used to spread and level the poured
plaster, and to control its thickness), and the use of pneumatic nailing tools in
final assembly.
Quality control was a prime consideration throughout. Numerous inprocess
inspection points were incorporated, and deficiencies were recorded for later
analysis of the process, as well as for immediate correction. Each discrepancy was
referred to a material disposition board consisting of the plant manager, produc-
tion engineer, and the quality control engineer, and decisions were made to scrap,
return to vendor, rework to drawing, or rework not to drawing (providing form,
fit, and function were not affected).
Procurement of materials, supplies, and those subassemblies which were pur-
chased (floors, window and door units, and roof trusses) required careful plan-
ning and scheduling. A normal bid procedure was used to select vendors from those
offering products meeting the specifications, and thorough receiving inspection
was conducted. In general, the flow of incoming material went smoothly, with few
delays. In order to take advantage of quantity prices, all items were purchased in
lots sufficient to supply the entire project, with deliveries coordinated to maintain
the necessary factory inventory.
B. Transportation
Transportation from the factory to the site required careful coordination of
schedules and equipment, since the 15 trailers moved 14 modules (two houses)
per day during the second half of the project.
Adjustments were made to the trailers for balance for safe road handling. At
first, sand bags were used; these were replaced with concrete ballast outriggers.
Fenders were added to prevent the throwing of mud and rocks by the wheels, and
cosmetic damage was eliminated. In total, the transportation operation proceeded
more smoothly than had been anticipated. A module en route to the site is shown
in figure 12.
82
C. Site Activity
Site preparation activities proceeded smoothly, and according to plan. As men-
tioned previously, grading, road, and utility work was completed for the entire
project, as well as construction of the foundations for the 46 different buildings.
The erection of the townhouses consisted of the use of a crane to lift each
subassembly module from its trailer and to put it in place. Figure 5 shows such
an operation. It also included completion of all structural connections necessary
to tie the four modules, core assembly, and two roof sections together. A seven-
man crew handled erection, including the crane lift and structural fastening.
They rapidly developed proficiency, and the operation became routine. The main
problem was the high wind prevalent in the area; the crew, however, learned
to cope with this well so that only five instances occurred when erection was
delayed by weather. The basic schedule called for erection of two houses per day;
it was found possible to step this up to three per day on those few occasions where
there was a need to make up for a delay in shipments from the factory.
Interior finishing of the townhouses included carpentry; taping and spackling
of joints; painting; connecting of electrical, plumbing, heating, and air condi-
tioning systems; installation of floor vinyl, shade and drapery rods; and clean-
ing. The finish coat of paint was a persistent problem, in that much of the fac-
tory-applied finish to such items as shelving, doors, trim, etc., had to be redone
in the field to obtain the desired quality. This was due mainly to blemishes re-
sulting from the handling, transportation, and erection environment to which
the modules were subjected. Walls were finish-coated in the field, as had been
originally planned. Representative interior views are shown in figures 14
through 18.
Exterior finishing of the townhouses included closure of the field joints in the
roof sections, exterior painting (including the application of silicone paint, stain
or synthetic stucco), installation of roof soffits, and exterior closure and trim.
Exterior finishing also included assembly of the prefabricated carports and
storage units. Several views of completed units are shown in figures 19 through
21.
The 16 apartment units used a stucco exterior finish. After the field installation
of "K-Lath," the stucco finish coat was applied, resulting in a very satisfactory
finished appearance. All other aspects of the finishing (which generally included
the same activities as with the townhouses) were accomplished successfully.
The four single units were erected on a conventional concrete slab using a
panel technique from 15 wall subassemblies. This experiment demonstrated the
adaptability of cast-plaster walls to that approach and also the flexibility of the
various component build-up methods that could be considered in industrialized
housing. On these units, the roofs were coated with a silicone rubber-granule cov-
ering in lieu of asphalt shingles. This method resulted in an outstanding appear-
ance when in place on site. The closure of the field joint on this roof was a much
simplified procedure and the joint was undetectable to the eye.
Site finishing in terms of paving, curbing, landscaping, seeding, sprinkler
installation, and erection of street lights was accomplished in a conventional
manner with no problems of consequence.
All in all, the operation of the George Air Force Base project was highly suc-
cessful. Much was learned, and a large part of the knowledge acquired was in-
corporated in the ongoing program. The remainder was cataloged for use in suc-
ceeding projects. The nature of the results can be attributed to the degree of care
and level of detail and coordination which was maintained by all elements con-
cerned during the planning phase. The same conscientiousness, plus careful
observation of, and quick response to, problems as they occurred during the
execution phase was equally vital. A very key area in this whole dwelling con-
struction concept is that of coordination between site and factory activities.
Not only the definition of the planned interfaces, but the ability to responsively
and effectively modify the interfaces, either temporarily or permanently, was
essential to success.
The quantitative results of the project are discussed in the following section.
IV. EVALUATION
A. Schedule and quality
All 200 units of the George Air Force Base project were completed 4 weeks
ahead of the planned schedule. This demonstrated the workability of the in-
dustrial manufacture/field erection concept chosen. The Air Force specifications
regarding structural integrity, functionality of all systems, and quality of work-
83
manship and appearance were detailed and stringent. Each unit was carefully
inspected for acceptance at this level of specification, indicating that the qualities
desired in the product were achieved.
Formal evaluation by occupants has not yet been conducted. Evaluation by the
Air Force prototype review team, base personnel and their families, Members of
Congress and their staffs, officials from the Department of Defense and the Hous-
ing and Urban Development Department, and representatives of the building
and materials industries have been uniformly enthusiastic. All agreed that the
architecural characteristics common to many of the factory-produced designs
of the past had been successfully avoided, and early indications are that main-
tenance costs will be significantly reduced.
B. Cost
The increase in efficiency which is anticipated in a well-planned production
operation was realized. The first unit delivered by the factory had a recorded
total of 3,360 labor-hours; the final unit required 325 hours. These gains were a
combined result of the expected improvement in repetitive production opera-
tions (or "learning curve"), of design improvements, and of production process
improvements. Additional gains will continue as further learning and innova-
tions are introduced.
In the cost studies conducted in Phase II, for a mature factory production op-
eration, an equivalent 4-bedroom townhouse was estimated to reach a cost of $16,-
900. This was on a basis of mobile factories capable of producing 200 units at
each of five sites, per year (total, 1,000 units per year), with a factory life of
5 years. Independent sources estimated the equivalent dwelling, built by con-
ventional methods, to cost $20,500. In comparison, in the demonstration project
at George Air Force Base, the average cost of this same type unit was $23,400.
Considering that this was an initial, small run (180 units), with costs of many
developmental problems included, this comparison appears quite favorable and
confirms the economic potential indicated by the studies.
The flexibility of the approach was demonstrated by the shift from the town-
house design to the 2-bedroom flats and then to the 4-bedroom single dwellings.
Such versatility does have its cost, in comparison with standardization of manu-
facture to a single design; the determination of the best approach must be made
for the specific project, or projects, contemplated. This is true in all aspects of
design of such a housing construction system. For example, the type and size
of factory, the making or buying of components, and similar questions can only
be optimized for specific case. Experience in this program indicates that a fixed
factory probably lends itself better to this type of fabrication than does the
mobile type originally conceived. Since transportation from factory to site proved
less troublesome than expected, a factory's effective radius can be enlarged.
Larger production quantities then possible would justify increasing the amount
of investment in facilities and automated equipment.
V. FUTURE
This implementation of the concept at George Air Force Base has demon-
strated a utility and a number of advantages that can be of immediate value in
meeting current and near-future needs for both military and civilian housing.
Specifically, it has been shown possible to produce attractive dwellings of good
quality and operability in pleasant community settings at a much shorter than
usual development cycle, and at an attractive cost saving. Increased learning
will continue to reduce cost in similar projects. Another significant cost benefit
is gained by having a large portion of the fabrication performed in a facility
staffed by labor in the unskilled, light manufacturing category, where the char-
acteristic rise in wage patterns has been 3 percent annually. Compared to the
7-percent rise seen in the construction trades, a continuing benefit is available
in terms of cost, added to the basic savings available from a continuous produc-
tion operation.
Equally important to the possibility of obtaining more house for the dollar than
present trends permit is the better ability to control quality of product under fac-
tory conditions. While the quality of any product is essentially established dur-
ing the design process, it requires good quality control discipline to insure that
the quality level desired is actually effected during the manufacturing process.
With fabrication consisting of a number of well-defined unit operations, all con-
ducted in a central facility, the ability to maintain quality economically is
greatly enhanced when compared to conventional field construction operations.
In addition to establishing the validity of the concept for immediate applica-
tion, 'the experience and results of this project point the way towards a number
of extensions. These fall into several categories. One such is that of improved
manufacturing methods for materials and design concepts now used. An example
is the continuous-wall casting machine now in operation at General Electric's
Development Manufacturing Center at King of Prussia, Pa., shown in figure 22.
Here the plaster is applied to a moving belt, screeded, and frame weldments
are set in place. By the time the unit has reached the end of the belt, sufficient
set has occurred to enable lifting the wall and transferring it overhead to the
conveyors for movement to the assembly area. All walls for one townhouse can
be produced in less than 40 minutes.
An additional example in this category is the in-plant roll forming of studs
and channels, including roll-punching of loops for plaster attachment, in place
of lath. Coupled with semi-automated welding fixtures, a highly integrated and
efficient wall frame production system will result.
Another area for innovation lies in new materials and their application for
the current designs. While the plywood skin, paper honeycomb floor is superior
in quality and function to the conventionally built floor, it was more expensive.
However, current work shows that other material combinations and bonding
techniques can lead to equivalent quality at competitive cost.
Again, another example of this type will be the use of foamed-in wall insula-
tion. Polyurethane foam will be sprayed in place as well units move along the
cast-plaster belt line, thus eliminating the installation of insulation as a sequential
step.
There are also possibilities of use of new combinations to achieve lighter,
stronger modules of "stressed skin" construction. These may wall lead to new
designs, with accompanying departures from conventional appearance, and this
will require careful determination of customer, or occupant, acceptance, as well
as life testing under all conditions of use.
The promise in such extensions of the art of housing design and construction
is great. The essential factor, for any given undertaking in any given time
period, is to understand and define clearly the achievement that is desired, and
to ensure that all aspects of the undertaking-social, economic, and technical-
have been carefully analyzed and their requirements and results placed in proper
balance.
The proof that this kind of careful and thorough analysis can actually be
executed, and the results achieved as planned, is perhaps the single, most im-
portant outcome of the family housing project. The precise definition of require-
ments by the Department of Defense and the Air Force, coupled with meticulous
design and execution by Gibbs & Gibbs, General Electric, and Del E. Webb, plus
the many subcontractors, working as a closely coordinated team throughout,
has shown what an effective combination of skills and capabilities can do to
meet a key national need.
[Editor's note: More detailed reports were provided for the com-
mittee files.]
NORTON AFB SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS
SIGNIFICANT PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Norton AFB project successfully demonstrated the objectives planned
for the program. Several elements of the project were key contributing factors
in this regard and are identified as follows :
Management
The union relationships throughout the project were again excellent. In par-
ticular, successful negotiations were concluded, without work stoppage, for a
2-year extension to the factory labor agreement and for the resolution of juris-
dictional disagreements on site concerning the finishing of modular joints.
The critical path management (CPM) network was effectively employed as
the basic program plan for work implementation and the value for each activity
became the basis for contractor monthly payments.
The joint venture of A-J Construction and the General Electric Co., created
for this project, was an efficient and trouble-free operation that was realized, to
a major extent, by establishing the split in field responsibilities at the dwelling
unit sill plate.
Design
The single, ranch style units utilized various architectural features, exterior
finishes, and site layout arrangements that eliminated any appearance associated
with their factory origin and presented the appearance of a conventionally con-
structed community.
The conventional joist floors proved to be stable platforms for module handling,
lifting, and transportation, yet were significantly lower in cost than the honey-
comb plywood floors used at George AFB.
The design incorporated relocatability (i.e., the ability to readily disassemble,
move, and reassemble a unit at a minimum cost) which was successfully demon-
strated via the relocation of the finished prototype unit from Apple :Valley to
site 1 at Norton AFB.
At approximately project midpoint the roof system was changed from built-
up stone to a silicone rubber membrane for weather seal and with imbedded
granules for cosmetic effect. This roof feature, which was first demonstrated on
four units at George AFB, should provide the dwellings with a projected long
life, maintenance-free roof with attendant savings in the total life cycle costs
of the units.
Factory/Production
The fa-torv at Annie VAllev was simificatly expanded and improved prior to
project initiation in order to successfully achieve a production of 12 modules per
day (i.e., 3 houses per day). These improvements included various building
additions and modifications, a more efficient material handling system and the
installation of several new tools and fixtures. In addition to the above, a special
silicone spray facility was designed and constructed with virtually no interrup-
tion to the normal production activities. This resulted in the on-schedule introduc-
tion of the application of the silicone roof system in the factory per item 7.
Transportation/Site Operations
Module transportation over the 58 miles from factory to site was a relatively
trouble-free operation, despite the almost constant winds of Cajon Pass and the
traffic restrictions (e.v., load size) imposed by the State Highway Department
during commuting hours.
On-site erection was a smooth, efficient operation with an average of 20 modules
installed per day. Under peak load, 28 modules (7 houses) were erected in one day
to maintain schedule.
Buy-off and acceptance activities were particularly timely and efficient due
to a program which included the following factors:
(a) The conduct of a comprehensive quality control program at the factory.
(b) The establishment of the prototype unit as a quality acceptance standard
for workmanship and finish.
(c) The on-site implementation of a timely prefinal inspection by a joint Air
Force-General Electric team.
(d) The accomplishment of a final Air Force inspection and buy-off with a
minimum of discrepancies and corrective actions-due primarily to the three
factors above.
RANK OF INSPECTORS
Mr. TALCOTr. One complaint I have heard about your construction
management is that you have too many new second lieutenants as in-
spectors on jobs. A second lieutenant can break a contractor. Some are
just plain ignorant and inexperienced, and you insist on having brand
new second lieutenants act as inspectors on important big facilities.
One in particular I have heard about involved Vandenberg Air Force
Base where 15 or 16 subcontractors went broke or went insolvent be-
cause of inspections.
Mr. LONG. Is this because you have a person who tried conscien-
tiously to do his job and broke all the contractors?
Mr. TALCOTr. He may have been conscientious but he certainly lacked
experience. It seems like an inspector ought to have a little rank.
General REILLY. I was not aware of any problem out there. It is
true we have used young officers on many occasions. These boys are
extremely well educated and with proper supervision we feel provide
a very good on-site representative for the Air Force. I would hope we
aren't using second lieutenants without proper supervision either from
the major command or my office.
Mr. TALOOTT. It can discourage people from bidding on Air Force
projects, and I understand that is the situation.
General REILLY. I will certainly look into that, because I am not
aware that we have had problems in this area.
Mr. TALCOTT. Is there nobody in here who is aware of that ?
[The information follows:]
We have reviewed our new housing construction projects and our project engi-
neers, with two exceptions, are graduate engineers or architects with the rank
of captain or civil service GS-11 or 12, all having previous construction expe-
rience. One project engineer is a first lieutenant graduate civil engineer with prior
experience in civilian housing construction. One project engineer is a civil service
GS-11 construction management engineer with considerable field experience. In-
spectors are either civilians provided under title II architect-engineer service
contracts or civilian and military inspectors from the base civil engineer forces.
Regarding Vandenberg Air Force Base, we cannot find a project that fits those
conditions. The only project we could find in the area that appears applicable
is the fiscal year 1970, 300 airmen unit project we constructed at Davis-Monthan
Air Force Base, Ariz. The contractor was from Redlands, Calif. Our project engi-
neer was a civil service GS-11 architect, registered in Arizona and California.
He was assisted by a first lieutenant graduate civil engineer who provided direct
liaison between the project engineer and the title II architect-engineer inspection.
This first lieutenant was under the direct supervision of the well qualified regis-
tered architect. After this first lieutenant had been on the job approximately 15
months, he did accomplish some inspection. We believe we had a highly qualified
and experienced team to manage this construction in an equitable manner. We do
not have any knowledge of any subcontractor having gone out of business as a
result of this project.
It is our policy to use second lieutenants as inspectors only when their actions
can be closely supervised by experienced construction managers. This provides
them valuable experience to becoming well qualified construction managers.
WIVES' VIEWS ON FAMILY HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. We will go into the details of the Air Force's family
housing program later in our hearings. Can you tell us now what you
have learned from the Air Force wives you have talked to and what
steps are being taken to follow their suggestions ?
General REILLY. An extensive survey was conducted last year to find
out just what the housewives' views were regarding housing and what
things they felt were not being provided. Highest on their list was
central air-conditioning for housing. They felt a half bath on the first
floor of a two-story townhouse was important, and a fenced-in yard
especially where children are involved. They felt better soundproofing
was required where we have duplex units. They felt additional storage
space both inside and outside the house was needed.
I think our present housing designs incorporate these features. We
are not building any houses now without air-conditioning in those
areas where it is authorized, and we are making a concerted effort to
provide additional amenities.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Mr. PATTEN. Has the Air Force reached the point where you are
unable to program substantial numbers of new family housing units
at bases which you know will have long-range utilization ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, there are a number of our long term hard
core bases where the deficit has been reduced to the point where it is
very difficult to program a sizable project.
Mr. PATTEN. Has the community support situation for upper grade
personnel improved at many of your U.S. bases ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it has changed. We find with increased pay
and benefits that more and more people want to invest in a house in a
community as opposed to on-base housing. This has, of course, made
more housing within the communities available.
Mr. PATTEN. What progress is being made in housing the so-called
"ineligibles" ?
SECTION 236 HOUSING
General REILLY. The HUD 236 program, this committee is very
familiar with, has helped us a great deal. It has permitted many of
our lower grade airmen to be able to have adequate housing at reason-
able costs.
Mr. SIKES. Are you going to need additional legislation if that pro-
gram is reinstituted-and I think it may be-in order to overcome the
problem of increased income making the eligibles ineligible ?
General RETLLY. Yes; it could very well be.
Mr. SImES. Have you suggested changes in the language ?
General REILLY. We have not as of yet, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Is that a good point ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it is a very good point.
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. What use has been made of the additional units which
were declared substandard as the result of legislation passed last year ?
General REILLY. Of the 20,000 units the Office of Secretary of De-
fense could declare substandard, 6,659 was the Air Force's share. We
fully implemented our portion as of the first of this calendar year.
Mr. NICHOLAS. There has been some question as to whether the pro-
vision passed last year actually will provide additional housing which
can be declared substandard. Apparently there is some thought that the
new legislation may have wiped out the previous authorization to
declare units substandard. Have you heard of any problems along this
line ?
Mr. JOHNsON. No, sir, we haven't had any problems along these
lines at all. Our old inadequate quarters are being administered under
the old policy. New inadequate quarters won't be able to come under
the old policy until we get the eligibles out. We are letting them move
out by attrition. We cannot move all eligibles out at once.
Mr. NICHOLAS. There is no problem with the existing legislation in
terms of the number of units in your inventory which can be declared
substandard?
Mr. CROCKETT. We just got our share.
Mr. NICHOLAs. Would you double check that for the record?
Mr. CROCKETT. Yes.
[The information follows:]
Out of the 20,000 units allocated to OSD in existing legislation the Air Force
was allowed to declare 6,659 units inadequate. The Air Force has additional
units that could be declared inadequate if the number of units authorized to be
declared substandard were increased in fiscal year 1974 or future years legislation.
The Air Force still has approximately 10,000 to 15,000 units that are below pres-
ent-day standards but have not been declared substandard. When they are de-
clared substandard they would eventually be made available for lower grade
airmen.
Mr. PATTEN. Are less Air Force personnel eligible to use HUD
programs?
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. PATTEN. Are you concerned with this trend ?
General REILLY. We think it is a good trend, Mr. Patten. If I
understood the question right that is.
Mr. PATTEN. If you can use the HUD programs less, your problems
will increase won't they ?
General REILLY. Oh, yes. I am sorry.
Mr. PATTEN. You said you have made good use of the 236 program.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. PATTEN. With the fixed guidelines and increase in military
wages you may have some people who are no longer eligible.
General REILLY. That is correct. I misunderstood the question.
DEFICIT IN OVERSEAS HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. What part of your remaining deficit is at overseas
locations?
Mr. JOHNSTON. More than 50 percent of our program deficit is at
overseas locations at this particular time. These are primarily in the
areas of Kadena, Clark, and some of the European countries.
RENTAL GUARANTEE AND LEASE-CONSTRUCTION
Mr. PATTEN. Do you see the leasing and rental guarantee programs
as producing much additional housing to meet your needs overseas?
Mr. JOHNsTON. Yes; we see the program continuing to provide a
means of acquiring houses overseas. We started the rental guarantee.
We are hopeful the increase per month payment of $275 contained in
this year's bill will provide for additional application of the rental
guarantee overseas. We do see both of these programs providing con-
tinuing benefits.
Mr. PATTEN. What has been the Air Force's experience with lease-
construction family housing in England ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have had good success with the lease-construc-
tion program in the United Kingdom. Presently we have obtained
about 1,000 leases in the United Kingdom, and about 500 to 600 of these
were acquired under the lease-construction program whereby we en-
tered into an agreement with the lessor while the project was under
construction. We obtained as many as 150 units in one project we got
under this technique.
Mr. PATTEN. DO you agree with the GAO's conclusions that, in
England, lease-construction has been more economical than the rental
guarantee program, but has provided a house which is not as near
U.S. standards ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; we agree with the GAO report in general.
Our rental guarantee unit, which costs a little more than the leasing
program, provides a little more house and is a little bit more to
American standards. The lease-construction units we usually obtain in
the construction stages, and we can't get them exactly to our specifi-
cations. The standards are a little bit less but they cost a little bit less.
Mr. NICHOLAs. In view of your large deficit overseas in some of the
locations which you mentioned, which programs are you looking at
to try to meet this deficit, if indeed you are proposing to meet it, in
the next few years ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We are looking at both programs. In some partic-
ular areas, rental guarantee is not feasible because you have no resid-
ual value. In other words, if a man can't amortize his project in 10
years, he won't put his money in it. This is what we find in places
like Okinawa. If we build a rental guarantee project and we have
to move out in 7 or 8 years, nobody else will move into it, so the guy
loses his money. We have to depend on both programs.
Mr. SIxES. Are these the only two now in use ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir, with the exception of military construction.
Mr. SIKES. So you feel there is a place for both ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. There is a place for both; yes, sir.
Mr. TALCOTTr. There is a better place for leasing in England than
there would be in Spain or some other country where they don't match
our requirements. We don't want too much lease construction in Spain
where it would have to be used by the Spaniards after we leave if it is
to be economical.
Mr. JOHNSTON. But in Spain we have gone to lease construction be-
cause of our country-to-country agreement. The country-to-country
agreement in Spain is 5 years. We don't want to extend ourselves to 10
years. So we go to the lease construction which fits the country and our
tenure the best.
Mr. SIXEs. How does lease construction operate in comparison to
rental guarantee?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Under the lease construction program, the Govern-
ment itself pays the bills to the sponsor. In rental guarantee, the in-
dividual living in the quarters gets his quarters allowance and station
allowance to cover the payments. In addition, the rental guarantee is
usually on a 10-year basis, and the lease construction we get on a 5-
year basis. We get the standards we want in the rental guarantee pro-
gram more so than we do in the lease-construction program.
Mr. SIKEs. Does the lease-construction program actually involve
newly constructed housing ?
Mr. JOHNsTON. Yes, sir. In other words, we might catch a builder
building a building, and he might have 2 or 3 stories built of the 10.
If we can catch him at that particular stage, we could say it would
generate new construction; yes, sir.
OVERSEAS LEASING
Mr. SIKES. YOU also have a leasing program comparable to the leas-
ing program in this country ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir. In Germany, we have about 100 units under
lease under these particular arrangements; and in the United King-
dom we have approximately 500 or 600 under individual lease agree-
ments. But these are for units already constructed when we enter into
the agreement.
Mr. SIKEs. Do I take it from your answers and from the number of
units under lease, that this hasn't generally been a satisfactory method
of obtaining housing ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We feel it is a satisfactory method of obtaining
housing; yes, sir.
NEW FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION OVERSEAS
Mr. PATTEN. In which overseas areas would the Air Force consider
new construction as a realistic alternative ?
Mr. JOHNsTON. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have two projects in
the 1973 program, one at San Vito, Italy, and one at Incirlik, Turkey.
Also in the 1974 program we have a project for Guam. We feel that
in particular areas where we can't get rental guarantee we have no
other alternative but military construction. In Turkey we feel there is
insufficient residual value in rental guarantee projects; therefore, we
have gone to military construction. And we ran into the same difficulty
in Italy. We did two or three feasibility studies in Italy and found
rental guarantee infeasible, so we programed the units as military
construction.
Mr. TALCOTr. You don't try to put Americans in 10-story buildings
overseas do you?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.
Mr. TALCOTT. You inferred if you caught somebody on the second
floor of a 10-story building you could work out a deal with them. I
hope you don't force our people to live in beehives.
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir. I think one of the projects in Germany is
maybe a seven- or eight-story building, but they have elevators. In
Europe the economics of housing construction lead to multiple family
dwellings as opposed to single units.
Mr. TALCOTT. You can't afford to compress people either.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Obey.
BACKLOG OF ESSENTIAL MAINTENANCE
Mr. OBEY. What is the present Air Force backlog of essential main-
tenance and repair, and what do you anticipate at the end of fiscal
year 1974?
General REILLY. In 1974, sir, we anticipate about a $200 million
backlog of maintenance and repair. It is essentially that now.
Mr. OBEY. There is no change in this year over last year ?
General REILLY. It is a small increase over last year ?
Mr. OBEY. A small increase of about how much ?
General REILLY. It has been more than I thought. It has been from
about $171 to $200 million. About a $29 million increase-1973 over
1972.
Mr. OBEY. IS the maintenance floor which is set in the operation
and maintenance appropriation sufficiently high to prevent the
BEMAR from increasing?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it is. In fact the floor is sufficiently high,
and considering our anticipated BEMAR fundings, we think we will
be able to reduce our backlog by about 3 percent over the next year.
Not a great deal but some reduction.
Mr. OBEY. There are a series of tables, charts, lists, et cetera, which
should be inserted in the record at this point. They are :
AIR FORCE TRAINING WORKLOAD
(a) The current and projected Air Force training workloads, in-
cluding pilots and basic training, broken down by training center.
92
CURRENT AND PROJECTED AIR FORCE TRAINING WORKLOADS
The following tables contain actual and programmed production figures for
each Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) base and Technical Training Center for
fiscal years 1968 through 1978.
UPT PRODUCTION BY BASE, LAST FIVE YEARS
BASE
FY1968 F1969 FY1970 FY1971 F1972
Moody 384
Laughlin 412
Reese 414
Columbus
Craig 380
Laredo 338
*Randolph 96
Vance 420
Williams 452
Webb 404
**Sheppard -
TOTAL 3,300
330
430
440
334
361
240
457
469
418
3T79
417
411
419
376
431
379
500
544
425
67
3,96g
449
434
437
395
332
459
370
475
558
413
68
4,390
430
404
456
410
365
475
134
417
577
423
* Randolph discontinued UPT operations with Class 72-3.
** USAF production only. German Air Force production reported separately.
UPT PROGRAMMED PRODUCTION
BASE FY73
Moody 372 35E
Laughlin 376 40,
Reese 384 39E
Columbus 349 35C
Craig 320 29
Laredo 402 9c
Vance 365 362
Webb 379 36=
Williams 499 44
Sheppardlj 87 1 86
TOTAL 3,533 371
1 Indicates USAF graduates only.
2 USAF inputs to the German OPT
1968
106,299
37,478
24,516
21,420
24,665
1973
117,066
38,990
32,295
27,334
24,577
240,262
392
407
406
414
337
0
372
352
495
3,210
76
395
410
406
415
340
0
400
352
498
3,216
77
371
400
395
400
310
0
390
373
490
3,129
371
400
395
400
310
0
390
373
490
3,129
program have not been programmed.
TECHNICAL AND MILITARY PRODUCTION
ACTUAL PRODUCTION
11970
136,013 113,767
46,726 42,292
35,606 31,864
26,904 25,884
28,469 26,169
273,718 239,976
1971
120,191
40,638
24,792
22,135
22,690
230,416
TECHNICAL AND MILITARY PRODUCTION
PROGRAMMED PRODUCTION
1974 1976 1977
100,643 123,167 126,529 126,529
35,074 38,584 39,245 39,245
34,698 38,170 38,825 38,825
23,378 25,718 26,159 26,159
24,293 26,724 27,182 27,182
218,086 252,363 257,940 257,940
119,864
38,940
29,122
24,036
26 876
238,838
1978
126,529
39,245
38,825
26,159
27,182
257,940
BASE
Lackland
Sheppard
Keesler
Lowry
Chanute
TOTAL
BASE
Lackland
Sheppard
Keesler
Lowry
Chanute
TOTAL
93
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AWARDED OTHER THAN BY COMPETITIVE BID
Mr. SIKEs. (b) A listing of all construction contracts awarded in the
past year other than by competitive bid basis.
[The information follows:]
NEGOTIATED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS DURING FISCAL YEAR 1973
Base Line item PA Award date
Hawthorne I-------_ .. ... -------- - Bombardment scoring evaluation facil- $51,000 September 1972.
ity.
Peterson ....----------------------- Library............................. 449,000 July 1972.
Eglin ......-------------------------- Gymnasium-----------------------......................... 623,000 October 1972.
Keflavik a--------------------......................---- Aircraft shelters...........-------------------. 1,438,000 December 1972.
Do........------------------------ Nondestructive inspection shop...... 579,000 Do.
I Part of package item.
a Minority business set-aside.
a Negotiation required by country-to-country agreement.
NONAPPROPRIATED FUND AND GUESTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIKES. (C) A listing of all guesthouse construction planned in the
next year. Also show the nonappropriated fund projects accomplished
in the past year and the major ones planned.
[The information follows:]
No guesthouses or temporary lodging facilities (TLF's) are planned next year.
The nonappropriated fund TLF's projects accomplished in past years are:
Unite
Norton AFB, Calif------------------------ 40
Travis AFB, Calif---------------------------------------------------- 40
Luke AFB, Ariz--------------------- ------------ - - 40
Lowry AFB, Colo------------------------------------------------------------ 40
Keesler AFB, Miss ------------------------ 40
Homestead AFB, Fla---------------------- --------------------------- 40
Mather AFB, Calif--------------------------------------------------- 40
George AFB, Calif----------------- ------------------------------- 40
Robins AFB, Ga------------------------------------------------------ 40
Ent/Peterson AFB, Colo ------------------------- ---- - 40
Williams AFB, Ariz--------------------------------------------------- 40
Minot AFB, N. Dak--------------------------------------------------- 40
Langley AFB, Va.'--------------------------------------------------- 40
Andrews AFB, Md.'--------------------------------------------------- 60
McGuire AFB, N.J--------------------- ------------- ---- 30
Griffiss APB, N.Y.--- ------ ------ - -------- 35
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio ----------------------------------------- 40
Scott AFB, Ill.1------------ ------------- --------- 36
Malmstrom AFB, Mont--.--------------------------------------------- 40
Grand Forks AFB, N. Dak- ---------------------------- 40
MacDill AFB, Fla---------------------------------------------------- 40
Eglin AFB, Fla------------------------------------------------------40
Lackland AFB, Tex -------------------------------------------------- 60
Offutt AFB, Nebr---------------------------------------------------- 60
1, 001
No additional TL projects are planned.
1 Anticipate award of construction contract in June 1973.
94
PT. I.-PROJECTS OVER $25,000 BUT LESS THAN $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDER CONTRACT
DURING THIS PERIOD
PROJECT LISTING-NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
]Fund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4-Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
FOR THE PERIOD JAN. 1, 1972,
TO JUNE 30, 1972
Eielson AFB, Alaska............. Renovate main retail store...................... $137.7 $137.7 4
Elmondorf AFB, Alaska_.......-. Relocate Alaskan Exchange Headquarters.......---------. 152.5 152.5 4
Total, Alaskan Air-----------------------..........................---------------------------.... 290.2 ...
Command.
Baudette AFS, Minn............. Construct recreation multipurpose building-------....... 36.4 36.4 1
Calumet AFS, Mich....__........ Construct recreation workshop----.--------- 36.4 36.4 1
Charleston AFS, Maine......... Add to NCO club-___--------------------- 38.5 38.5 2
Duluth IAP, Mich............... Construct child-care center-.................... 153.0 207.5 1
Construct officer open-mess addition............. 54.5 .......... 2
Ent AFB, Colo. (Peterson Field)___ Construct golf facility__----------------. 155.0 529.9 1
Construct exchange cafe snackbar.........__ . 175. 7 .......... 4
Construct golf course, 9 hole.................... 199. 2 __________ 1
North Truro AFS, Mass .... ..-.. Construct NCO open-mess addition ............. 35.4 35.4 2
Total, Air Defense--------......----................---------------------------------------.. 884.1 ...
Command.
Richards Gebaur AFB, Mo.__..... Alter officers open mess........................ 150.0 150.0 2
Total, Air Force Communi- _....---------------...................... 150.0 ..
cations Command.
Hill AFB, Utah. - .... __-........ Construct recreation workshop-------__--.--__ 199.0 199.0 1
Kelly AFB, Tex . ...-- Add to and alter NCO opin mess............... 150.3 582.0 2
Add to and alter commissary... __. 210.8 .......... 3
Alter swim pool, bathhouse... ___--------_---- 50.0 .._.. 1
Construct child-care center__-----.............. 170.9 .......... 1
McClellan AFB, Calif--...--- .. Support facilities, multipurpose recreation........ 44.1 236.3 1
Add to arts and crafts shop---------------___... 164.9 ____ 1
Construct youth center ............... __... ... 27. 3 .........
Newark AFS, Ohio---......__.. Alter open mess, NCO.----------------------- 31.0 31.0 2
Robins AFB, Ga..--------.-... Add to gym------------ --------.-..____----- - 55.2 55.2 1
Tinker AFB, Okla.............. Alter base restaurant_..----------------------- 148.0 148.0 6
Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio...... Construct youth center __---------------------__ 182.8 380.6 1
Construct branch exchange------- 197.8 ...__..... 4
Total, Air Force Logistics .....--------------------------------------------- 1,632.1 .........
Command.
Kirtland AFB, N. Mex -.. ...... Alter commissary building..-------------........ 269.4 461.8 3
Construct recreation workshop.... __----------- - 192.4 1
Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Mass. Add to and alter commissary....._..____._.... 240.0 541.2 3
Add to NCOclub_-......___........... ____ 157.8 _______ 2
Construct youth center...------------------. 143.4 1
Los Angeles AFS, Calif ._____.. __ Alter officer open mess.......___........-____-. 185.7 185.7 2
Total, Air Force Systems ---------------------------------------------1,188.7
Command.
Chanute AFB, III----...-.... ... Renovate commissary meat market----........ 42.2 42. 2 3
Columbus AFB, Miss ---------- Construct lighted softball field---------------_ 52.8 177.0 1
Construct arts and crafts workshop...------ -.... 124.2 .._....... 1
Craig AFB, La_ -...... .__..__ Add to and alter golf house..__......_ ___.... 38.3 38.3 1
Lackland AFB, Tex--- .__.. __. .. Alter and convert building for BX.------------ 173.0 173.0 4
Laredo AFB, Tex-..---... --... .. Construct softball field-..-____..._..........__ 40.0 40.0 1
Moody AFB, Ga----.....-.-.. .. Alter officer open mess -___. .....__ __... 62.4 347.6 2
Construct 4 lighted tennis courts...--------------- 42.0 ___ 1
Construct recreation bowling alley .------.. --. 243. 2 1
Randolph ABF, Tex............. Construct facilities at Canyon Lake...-------------- 198.2 198.2 1
Reese AFB, Tex____ .. __.. . Alter BX main store---...-.-...... ........... 33.9 33.9 4
Sheppard AFB, Tex---- ...... .. Renovate snack bar---...------------------_ 27.0 27.0 4
Vance AFB, Okla- .. -..___.._ Construct child-care center---- .. . ___. . 122.1 122.1 1
Webb AFB, Tex---...--....__ ... Alter interior auto hobby shop--..--. ---.-.... . _ 27.5 59.3 1
Alter officer open mess--...---------....... 31.8 2
Williams AFB, Ariz......-- -..... Air-condition base library__---- .._........... . 30.9 131.1 1
Construct credit union..----------------------- 61.0 6
Alter base restaurant.-----.... . 39.2 ....____ 6
Total, Air Training Com- .. ---------------------------------------------1,389.7 ...
mand.
95
PT. I.-PROJECTS OVER $25,000 BUT LESS THAN $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDER CONTRACT
DURING THIS PERIOD-Continued
PROJECT LISTING-NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE-Continued
IFund source code: I-1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4-Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; --Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Gunter AFB, Ala..----------- Alter commissary sales store-................... $298.0 $298.0 3
Manwel AFB, Afs------.. Renovate regional exchange administrative offices. 214.0 214.0 4
Total, Air University.....................................-----------------------------------------..-----....-----..... 512.0 .......
Andrews AFB, Md.............. Install golf course sprinkler system..------------............ 289.9 457.4 1
Construct commissary warehouse................ 167.5 .......... 3
Total, Headquarters com-
mand, USAF ..------------------------------------------------------ 457.4 ...
Altus AFB, Okla__. ............. Add to and alter golf course ------.... -------199.3 199.3 1
Dover AFB, Del_---. ----_ Construct youth cnter...... ............------- 278.9 576.2 1
Renovate service station........................ 207.3 .......... 4
Addition to golf club house__..-.. - 90.0 .......... 1
Lajes Field, Azores.............. Addition to bowling alley. ------------------- 26.3 53.3 1
Repair recreation bowling alley.................. 27.0 .......... 1
McChord AFB,Wash....---- Construct golf course.... -------------------164.2 458.2 1
Construct/add to bowling center_..-.-.- -115.0 ... 1
Construct auto hobby shop .................... 179.0 1.... . 1
McGuire AFB, N.J.------------.. Add to cafeteria.............. ..... ..... ------------------ 82.7 82.7 4
Scott AFB, III------------__ Construct Airmen swimming pool...--------------- 286.8 456.0 1
Alter golf club house ......... . 169.2 _........ 1
Total, Military Airlift- _...................................--------------------------------------------1,825.7 -....--
Command.
Ching Chuan KangAB, Taiwan.... Air-condition recreation workshop.-----.------- 45.6 45.6 1
Clark AB, Philippines.. ..---------- Convertto exchnge service outlet --------------- 25.7 259.9 4
Alter commissary store.. 121.0 ..... . 3
Construct addition transient personnel facility...... 113. 2 ... 1
Hickam AFB, Hawaii -------- _ Construct MAC terminal branch exchange ---------........ 287.3 1,527.4 4
Construct arts/crafts center --------------- 251.1 .......... 1
Construct auto hobby shop -------- 200.0 ....... 1
Construct multipurpose courts.................. 28.0 -_______.. 1
Construct NCO open mess._.-..- - 177.0 ......... 2
Construct food drive-in.------- 287. 5 ......... 4
Install lights athletic field.--- - 157.6 .......... 1
Relocate/construct ball fields....... 113. 3 ........ 1
Renovate snack bar.___----.--... 25.6 .......... 4
Kadena AB, Ryuku. -----------. Alter interior officer open mess ----------------- 45.9 248.9 2
Construct lighting softball fields ......---.--- 73.0 .-... 1
Renovate lighting and bleachers _..-.________ _ 130. 0 ___...... 1
Korat AB, Thailand- ............ Activate cafeteria___ .------------------- - 66.1 66.1 4
Kunsan AB, Korea---------. Construct education center ......----------- - 36.6 126.5 1
Construct service club.__.--- ....... 89.9 .... 2
Nakhon Phanom Airport, Thailand- Relocate main BX store ---------------------- 52.3 52.3 4
Osan AB, Korea----- ......... .. Alter open mess NCO .. .......-------------. 36.0 374.9 2
Construct recreation workshop___-- 149. 5 ........ 1
Construct swimming pool._--. - 189.4 ........ 1
Taegu AB, Korea. ........... Construct education center ... ------------- - 35. 0 137. 7 1
Construct recreation bowling alley____ 102.7 .......... 1
U Tapao AB, Thailand......--------- Air-condition base library-..------.-.-.--.... . 32.0 32.0 1
Wheeler AFB, Hawaii ......---- - Alter gym handball court----- . --.----.. .___ 33.0 292.9 1
Construct auto paint workshop.-..-.- 87.7 ...... . 1
Install lights football field ... 106.0 .......... 1
Renovate service station.-.-. -......- 66. 2 ...... 4
Total, Pacific Air Forces..------.....----.....................----------------------------------- 3,164.2 .......
Andersen AFB, Guam ...---------- Renovate service station_. ____-----____ -_ - 187.8 524.6 4
Construct canopy, officer open mess--------- - 42. 5 . 2
Alter/add to terminal snack bar.. --- 115.6 ..... 4
Expand/renovate food preparation facility---..------ 178.7 ......... 4
Blytheville AFB, Ark---....-... Construct commissary storage_ _---. --------- 289.1 289.1 3
Carswell AFB, Tex----. -- - Alter store commissary ......----------------------..178.9 411.1 3
Construct service station __._...-- 232.2 ....... 4
Ellsworth AFB, S. Dak... ..----- - Renovate main BX._________--------------- 76.0 76.0 4
F. E. Warren AFB, Wyo . ...---. . Alter service club. ......------------------. 40.8 40.8 2
Fairchild AFB, Wash_ .---------- Convert/alter building to credit union..........- 109.5 177.7 6
Construct gasoline station_--_ 68.2 .......... 4
Grissom AFB, Ind ._______...... Construct/alter commissary ------------------ 289.7 289.7 3
20-632 0 - 73 - 7
96
PT. I.-PROJECTS OVER $25,000 BUT LESS THAN $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDER CONTRACT
DURING THIS PERIOD
PROJECT LISTING-NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
IFund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4--Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
K. I. Sawyer AFB, Mich ..-... Alter fence, 2 softball fields ........
Construct exchange service station....
Lockbourne AFB, Ohio .......-- - Renovate cafeteria..-..---------------
Renovate 4 seasons store_......................
Renovate swimming pool.--------------
Loring AFB, Maine--...--- - Construct youth center ..........
Add to and alter commissary_..__
Malmstrom AFB, Mont .......... Add to and alter NCO open mess.....
Add to officers open mess__..
Convert commissary........ -------------------
Addition to handball court ..... .............- .
Alter recreation workshop.............. .......
March AFB, Calif.------------.. Addition to NCO open mess...._............
A lte r s p rin k le r syste m , g o lf c o u rse ..... . . . . . .. .
Renovate laundry/drycleaning pickup facility......
Offutt AFB, Nebr ............. Construct youth center .............
Pease AFB, N.H. . .------------- Convert to commissary....
W urtsmith AFB, Mich.... ....... Construct extension to branch exchange .........
$50.0 $242.0
192.0 ...
42.5 121.5
27.5 ..........
51.5 ...-
169.0 423.3
254.3 ......
176.9 758.4
120.7 ......
283.3 ......
48.0 ...
129.5 ......
32.5 ......
123.2
29.8 ..........
264.9 264.9
56.6 56.6
34.8 34.8
Total, Strategic Air Command ... ..... .........................--------------------. 3,896.0 .....
Bergstrom AFB, Tex............ Addition to bowling alley.-------------------.. 110.8 334.8 1
Construct Credit Union Building................. 224.0 ....... 6
Cannon AFB, N. Mex-....--... Construct golf facility..-- . --..--.. .----.. - - 140.8 140.8 1
Eglin 09 Airfield, Fla---....- ... Add to bowling alley ------------------------. 109. 7 605.1 1
Add to and alter NCO open mess---....---. --.. 251.1 .......... 2
Renovate service station--....... 43.0 .......... 4
Construct golf course, 9 hole__..-.- 201.3 ........ 1
England AFB, La._.------. Construct recreation bowling alley.___........ .. 242.3 242.3 1
George AFB, Calif..-----.. ...... Construct credit union...... ......---------------------- 155.9 155.9 6
Holloman AFB, N. Mex.......... Construct recreation workshop----------------- 127.9 127.9 1
Homestead AFB, Fla---~.... ... Construct golf facility. --------------------- 185.0 185.0 1
Little Rock AFB, Ark ... ...---- - Alter NCO open mess--....................__ 168.7 168.7 2
Luke AFB, Ariz..------.. Construct bowling center:.. ---------------- 273.0 273.0 1
McConnell AFB, Kans.... ...--- - Addition to credit union-------------........... 53.8 53.8 6
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho...... Alter exchange service outlet------------------ 47.9 218.9 4
Construct recreation workshop--------..- - 171.0 _...._.___ 1
Myrtle Beach AFB, S.C----... -.. Renovate officer open mess...-------------------- 44. 5 44.5 2
Nellis AFB, Nevada...... - . Construct golf club house addition.... ......... - 28.0 28.0 1
Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C...... Alter auto hobby shop __--------....-- 42.2 42.2 1
Shaw AFB, S.C __ __----------. Construct gasoline station-..--................ 162.7 302.7 4
Activate branch exchange-.- ..... 140.0 ______ _ 4
Total, Tactical Air Command __ - .- -- --. --.--..--.- --.- -.------_ 2,923.6 ...
U.S. Air Force Academy, Colo..... Construct cadet picnic area and install utilities.... 126.8 159.8 1
Renovate snack bar.-.---. -. 33.-0 "-- -___-3 4
Total, U.S. Air Force Acad-
emy----.... .. -----........................ ..............------------------------------------------------- 159. 8
RAF Alconbury, United Kingdom.. Construct child-care center.................._ 72.1 72.1 1
Ankara AS, Turkey-----------___ Add to gymnasium ...------------------------ 59.6 156.0 1
Construct 6-lane bowling alley......_........... 96.4 _-__ 1
RAF Bentwaters, United Kingdomn Construct child-care center-...................__ 60.0 144. 4 1
Construct thrift shop......___ __.............. _ 39. 4 .- 1
Construct youth center-......-._ ............. 45.0 ... 1
Bitburg, AB, Germany----.......... Repair/alter NCO open mess....-.-------- - 131.4 131.4 2
Hahn AB, Germany-----------_.. Add to and alter commissary_------------------- 63.1 104.6 3
Addition 2-lane bowling facility_ .... ------ -41.5 . 1
Incirlik AB, Turkey.----. - - Air-condition NCO open mess--.....----.......... 48.2 48.2 2
RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom- NCO open mess addition---__- .-...__--.-__ 57.1 95.8 2
Alter officers club kitchen...................... 38.7 _ 2
RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom._ Construct child-care center-------------. ---___ 40.0 40.0 1
Ramstein AB, Germany ........ Alter bowling alley..---------------. 183.2 602.3 1
Alter commissary store._ 128.5 -_ 3
Construct athletic field-- - - 86. 5 . . .. ......- 1]
Construct golf driving range_................ -.. 67.0 .___...... 1
Construct recreation work shop.----- - 137.1 ........
Rhein Main AB, Germany ..-- .- Alter rod-gun club............................. 42.0 218.6 1
Alter officers club_. .......--------- - 48.8 .-
Repair officers mess. _.......-. ------ - 127.8 -
97
PT. I.-PROJECTS OVER $25,000 BUT LESS THAN $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDER CONTRACT
DURING THIS PERIOD-Continued
PROJECT LISTING-NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE-Continued
[Fund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge
funds; 4-Exchange funds; 5-Motior picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Spangdahlem AB, Germany ..... Construct child-care center..------------------- $34.6 $34.6 1
Torrejan AB, Spain. ----------- Construct extension to service station----..--------......... 38.4 38.4 4
Wiesbaden AB, Germany- ..._ Renovate launderette.......................------------------------. 35.4 35.4 4
Zweibrucken AB, Germany - --.... Construct recreation workshop----------------- 126.5 246.0 1
Convert to bowling alley....... ......---------------------.. 119.5
Total, U.S. Air Forces in
Europe---------------------------------------------------------- 1,967.8 ......
San Vito Dei Norm AS, Italy ._.- Air-condition officer club..--........... . ------------------- 25.3 193.1 2
Construct NCO club addition .................------------------. 167.8 .......... 2
Total, U.S. Air Force Secu-
rity Service --------------------------------------------------------193.1 .....
PT. II.-NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OVER $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED
UNDER CONTRACT DURING THIS PERIOD
[Fund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge
funds; 4-Exchange funds; 5-Motiort picture service funds; 6--Private funds]
Total
Cost cost Fund
Installation Project title ($000) ($000) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
JAN. 1, 1972, TO
JUNE 30, 1972
Eielson AFB, Alaska .________ Construct 20-lane bowling alley$--------------- 975.0 $1,317.6 1
Construct child-care center------------------- 342.6 ...... 1
Elemdorf AFB, Alaska ------------do ---------------------------------400.0 400.0 1
Total, Alaskan Air Command .. ..--------------------------------------------1,717.6 ...------
Robins AFB, Ga--------------Replacement base theater....................-------------------- 372.8 372.8 5
Total, Air Force Logistics ----..-----------............ -------------------------------372.8 ---
Command.
Eglin AFB, Fla -------------- .Construct main store with warehouse, snack bar, 1,437.3 1,437.3 4
and services.
Total, Air Force Systems .......................---------------------------------------- 1,437.3 ...
Command.
Chanute AFB, IIL. ------------ Construct base exchange sales store .....-----------. 1,804.0 1,804.0 4
Lowry AFB, Colo.... ..------------ Constructcredit union --------------------- 347.0 1,613.1 6
Construct base exchange sales complex......--------- 1,266.1 ----__-_- 4
Reese AFB, Tex-------------- Construct 500-seat theater---- ...--------------- 320.8 320.8 5
Sheppard AFB, Tex....----------- Alter airman open mess ------- 311.8 637.5 2
Construct child-care center --------- 325.7 ......... 1
Total, Air Training Com- ---------------...............------------------------------ 4,375.4 -
mand.
Scott AFB, III --------------- Alter store commissary ----------------------361.2 1,001.7 3
Convert recreation work shop----------------- 308.4 ... 1
Convert youth center...---------------- 332.1 ........ 1
Total, Military Airlift Com- ...................---------------------------------------------... 1,001.7 ......
mand.
Clark AB, Philippines---------......... Construct exchange food preparation facility...... 372.8 372.8 4
Total, Pacific Air Forces------------------------------------------------ ......................................................... 372.8 ...
Andersen AFB, Guam .---------......... Addition to exchange sales store--------------...............--. 744.0 744.0 4
Blytheville AFB, Ark .....----.. Construct airmen swimming pool.--------------- 352.3 352.3 1
March AFB, Calif ......--------- Base theater replacement..........-------------------- 445.8 2,424.8 5
Construct exchange sales store-----..-------.............---... 1,979.0 .......... 4
98
PT. II.-NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OVER $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED
UNDER CONTRACT DURING THIS PERIOD
[Fund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4-Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Offutt AFB, Nebr................ Construct base theater......................... $452.8 $452.8 5
Total, Strategic Air Comn- -...................................................... 3,973.9 .......
mand.
Bergstrom AFB, Tex............. Construct exchange sales store------........--------......... 1, 502.0 1,988.3 4
Construct theater building.................... 486.3 5
George AFB, Calif-...... -- Construct new exchange sales store------.............. 671.5 671.5 4
Homestead AFB, Fla--... ...--- - Construct bowling alley------........................ 318.7 318.7 1
Nellis AFB, Nev-----.~.-.. ...... Construct exchange cafeteria...--------................. 398.0 398.0 4
Total, Tactical Air Com- _....................................................... 3,376.5 ...
mand.
Rhein Main AB, Germany........ Construct bowling alley.----___--.--.-----... 308.9 308.9 1
Total, U.S. Air Forces in ------------------------------------------------------- 308.9 .........
Europe.
PT. I-PROJECTS OVER $25,000 BUT LESS THAN $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDER CONTRACT DURING
THIS PERIOD
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.......... Relocate exchange headquarters................. $189.0 $189.0 4
Total, Alaskan Air Com- -- -------------------------------------------.... 189.0 ...
mand.
Roanoke Rapids AFS,N.C......... Swimming pool-------------................... 40.0 40.0 1
Tyndall, AFB, Fla....-...-.. .. Renovatecar-carecenter ....---.......... -----30.8 30.8 4
Total, Air Defense Com- ..------ -----------------------------------------70.8 ...
mand.
Hill AFB, Utah....... ... Hobby shop ----------------------------- 197.0 197.0 1
McClellan AFB, Calif_....... ..... Multipurpose court ----. ----------------- - 33.0 33.0 1
San Antonio AFS, Tex..... ...--- - Renovate warehouse .....-------.......... .__ 47.9 47.9 4
TinkerAFB,Okla ..... ... ------- Alter base cafeteria....---------.. -..---.. - --- - 155.0 155.0 6
Total, Air Force Logistics ................---------------------------------------------- 432.9 ...
Command.
Kirtland AFB, N. Mex............ Recreational workshop....------------............. 192.4 392.4 1
Altercommissary-......._-....._._._._.______ 200.0 .......... 3
Total, Air Force Systems .-----..---...........------------------------------------ 392.4
Command.
Craig AFB,Ala..-----......... .. Add toand altergolfclubhouse----- .. -------_ 51.5 51.5 1
Sheppard AFB, Tex-..... ....--- . Renovate snackbar----- ---... _--...--....-- 28.2 28.2 4
Webb,AFB,Tex........-.. ... Creditunion ------......--..--- --- - 45.2 172.6 6
Add toand altercommissary.------.. - - 127.4 ..... 3
Total, Air Training Com- ----------------------------------------------252.3 .
mand.
Gunter AFB, Ala...-............ Commissary sales store ...---------............ 298.0 298.0 3
Total,Air University.... ..--------------------------------------------------- 298.0 ....
Andrews AFB, Md.....______.__ Renovate service station------------------------ 25.4 322.4 4
Indoor tennis court- .....-.-------- -___-- 297.0 1
Bolling AFB, District of Columbia. Alter NCO club kitchen--...-..-.------------ _ 49.9 112.5 2
Renovate main store.--..... -__-....... 62.6 . 4
Total, Headquarters Com-
mand, USAF...---------- --------------------------------------434.9
Altus AFB, Okla................ Renovate officers' open mess -------.. ----------- 121.7 121.7 2
McChord AFB, Wash- ........... Alter base theatre---------------.------------ 29.0 138.7 5
9 hole golf course............___________ ___ 109.7 ------... 1
99
PT. I-PROJECTS OVER $25,000 BUT LESS THAN $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDER CONTRACT DURING
THIS PERIOD
[Fund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4--Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Norton AFB, Calif............... Branch bank -- .............
Add to and alter commissary.__...............
Service station......._...._._._._ . _._______
Travis AFB, Calif_............... Terminal retail branch stockroom................
$53.0 $512.0
208.2 ......
250. 8 .....
27.3 27.3
Total, Military Airlift Com-
mand......--------------.. -------- ------------------------------------- 799.7 ...
Ching Chuan Kang AB, Taiwan.... Air-condition recreation workshop............... 49.0 49.0 1
Clark AB, Philippines............ Renovate beauty shop.-------.. ................ 32.8 968.2 4
Base transient personnel facility- .......... _ 97.0 o -- 1
Alter commissary store__.----.-......... 0120.0 3
Air-condition service club-....... 120.0 -------... 1
Swim pool and bathhouse----------......... 237.4 ........ 1
Exchange bakery--------------------------- 264.0 ---- 4
Bowling center addition....................... 97.0 1
Hickam AFB, Hawaii....-...... Golf cart storage facility -..--....-------------- - 28.0 235.0 1
Latrine facility -----------------------......... 32.0 1......... 1
Golf course sprinkler system.................. 175.0 1
Kadena AB, Ryukyu-------- _ Alter softball athletic field .-------------------- 55.0 86.0 1
Airmen club kitchen addition---_______ 31.0 -.... 2
Kunsan AB, Korea ___....... .. Activate food preparation facility................ 29. 5 76. 5 4
Recreational workshop __...................... 47.0 ......... 1
Kwang-Ju AB, Korea ----..-. ... Education center---------------------------__ 50.0 50.0 1
Osan AFB, Korea__--... - - Alter NCO open mess....-..................... 36.0 312.6 2
Alter officers' club kitchen...................... 67.0 _........ 2
Base hobby center........................... 104.6 ....... 1
Recreational workshop._ _ _ . 105.0 ........ 1
U-Tapao AB, Thailand... ..--------- Officers' club ...... ..........----------------- 37.0 71.0 2
Air-condition base library-....-.- 34.0 .......... 1
Wheeler AFB, Hawaii -......--- - Gymnasium handball courts__ ..__------..-- 33.0 109.0 1
Exchange service station__..................---------------------. 76.0 .......... 4
Total, Pacific Air Forces------__............... .................... 1,957.3 ..........
Ellington AFB, Tex-......__.... Renovate main store-.......................... 156.0 156.0 4
Tota I, Air Force Reserve__________ _ 156.0
Andersen AFB, Guam ....------ - Renovate cafeteria............................. 71.4 71.4 4
Fairchild AFB, Wash__ ........ . Renovate 4 seasons store....................... 140.7 140.7 4
Grissom AFB, Ind----___-__--- Add to and alter commissary .._..... ... ...... 299.9 299.9 3
Kincheloe AFB, Mich__ ...__... Golf clubhouse -..--........... -- ----- 74.0 74.0 1
Lockbourne AFB, Ohio-...-.__.. _ Credit union __-_______________ - - - - --_______ 36.9 87.8 6
Repair officers' swim pool --- .. .. __ 50.9 .......... 1
Offutt AFB, Nebr__.---.. -- Retail branch and gasoline station __.....----- - 230.1 230.1 4
Pease AFB, N. H-__ ......... .. Branch bank.-----..........--..... ... ........ 172.0 172.0 6
Loring AFB, Maine._______ _ Add to and alter commissary ------------------296.0 296.0 3
Total, Strategic Air Com-
mand................-------------------.. 1, 371.9 ..
Bergstrom AFB, Tex ..........._ Alter officers open mess .---------------------- 94.0 94.0 2
Cannon AFB, N. Mex.......-------------do --------------------------------- 46.3 46.3 2
Eglin No. 9 AFB, Fla......... .. Bowling alley addition- -- -- ............-- - 117. 5 376. 2 1
Golf facility.......................------------------------------. 182. 7 ....... 1
Credit union....------------------------------76.0 6
Holloman AFB, N. Mex .._...... Alterofficers open mess-...--. ..-..-.. . 46.3 219.2 2
Credit union.......-----------------------------172.9 6
Homestead AFB, Fla_.--. -- 9-hole golf course- ----- __.--.... . .- - 225. 0 225.0 1
Little Rock AFB, Ark---.... ..... Add to and alter bowling alley.. -----------------201. 2 201. 2 1
Luke AFB, Ariz.-___----. NCO open-mess addition ...----......-------- - 77.5 77.5 2
MacDill AFB, Fla - ......-....... Credit union addition .................__.. 113.0 113.0 6
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho .-... Alter exchange outlet----------- ..-.... . ... ... 66.3 286.3 4
Recreational workshopn-e20.0__.----- -2 ..... . 1
Pope AFB, N.C--------------- Activate branch exchange.--------------------- 30.0 30.0 4
Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C-----_ . ....do . .........------------------ 26.3 228.8 4
Renovate service station-...---..... 202. 5 ..... 4
Total, Ta6tical AirCommand ...-- .... .....................-------------------------. 1,897. 5 ........
Adana Incirlik, Turkey--------._ Renovate main store...................- ..... 38.0 38.0 4
Bentwaters RAF, United Kingdom- Child-care center ............................. 60. 0 60. 0 1
Ramstein AB, Germany ... ..-------- Add to and alter commissary..-........ ......... 121.0 121.0 3
San Vito AS, Italy.-___ __Main store extension..-----------------------........................ 254.3 254.3 4
Torrejon AB, Spain---. ---- Renovate cafeteria---.......................... 31. 9 31. 9 4
100
PT. I-PROJECTS OVER $25,000 BUT LESS THAN $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDFR CONTRACT DURING
THIS PERIOD
IFund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2--Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4-Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (a)
Upper Heyford RAF, United Activate launderette......................... $32. 8 $32. 8 4
Kingdom
Woodbridge RAF, United Kingdom. Youth center ..............................-----------------------------. 95. 0 95.0 1
Total, U.S. Air Forces in
Europe....-------..----....-----...........--------.........................---------------------------------.. 633.0..........
Goodfellow AFB, Tex-........... Credit union -........--------... .......... ----137.0 137.0 6
Iraklion ASN, Greece ..----------. Bowling alley .......----------------------------- 78.3 78.3 1
San Vito AS, Italy------------....... Golf course addition ....---------------- -------- 191.7 426. 7 1
Exchange facility.............................. 235.0 .......... 4
Total, U.S. Air Force Secu-
rity Service-------------------....----------------..........................------------...---------................. 642.0 ..........
PT. II.-PROJECTS OVER $300,000 STARTED OR PLACED UNDER CONTRACT DURING THIS PERIOD
[Fund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge
funds; 4-Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1972,
TO DEC 31, 1972
Clark AB, Philippines---.......- - Relocate and renovate food preparation facility..... $300.1 $654.1 4
Recreational workshop......---------------------..................354.0 ... 1
Hickam AFB, Hawaii----------............. Terminal branch exchange (project reported at 371.0 371.0 4
$287.3 in pt. I of July 1972 report. Contract award
was postponed and awarded at revised cost).
Osan AB, Korea..........------------....... Main exchange................................ 485.0 485.0 4
Total, Pacific Air Forces............. ----------------------------------------------- 1,510.1 .........
Andersen AFB, Guam .......... -Extension to main store----------------------- 624.7 624.7 4
March AFB, Calif....-----------............ Main exchange....-------------------------- 1,438.8 1,438.8 4
Minot AFB, N. Dak-----------.............. Swim pool and bathhouse...-------------------- 334.0 334.0 1
Total, Strategic Air Com-
mand------....-------..........................................................--------------------------------------------- 2,397.5 ......
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio...... Alter NCO open mess, building 1226............. 738.0 738.0 2
Total, Air Force Logistics
Command............----------------.............----------------------------------------. 738. 0........
Randolph AFB, Tex.............. Credit union...............................----------------------------... 677.2 677.2 6
Williams AFB, Ariz -----------.............. Commissary store..-----........................... 1,711.0 1,711.0 3
Total, Air Training Com-
mand-------.........------------------------------------------------....... --....... 2,388.2 ..........
Andrews AFB, Md............... Credit union......---------------------------............................ 985.9 985.9 6
Total, Headquarters Com-
mand, USAF----....--...--..-------.................---------------------------------------........ 985.9 ......
Norton AFB, Calif------------ Consolidated exchange..---------...................... 1,469.4 1,469.4 4
Scott AFB, III. --------------- Youth center..--------..........................--------------------- 310.0 310.0 1
Total, Military Airlift Com-
mand----------........ ------------------------------------------------....... 1,779.4 ...
Bergstrom, AFB, Tex...........--------. Base theater replacement..---.. ----------------499. 3 2, 046. 3 5
Consolidated exchange........------------------................. 1, 547.0 -......__ 4
Pope AFB, N.C.........-------------.... Recreational bowling alley-------------------................ 338. 0 338.0 1
Total, Tactical Air Com- --.......-------------------------------------------.. 2,384.3 ..
mand.
101
PT. I1I.-PROPOSED NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OVER $300,000
IFund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3-Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4-Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
AFTER DEC. 31, 1972
Eielson AFB, Alaska.....---------. Exchange service station-LConstruct a 4,560 ft.2 $428. 1 $428.1 4
service station and auto parts store.
Total, Alaskan Air Com- -----..--....--..---... ..----------------------------------- 428. 1 ..
mand.
Chanute AFB, III....____....... Swimming pool-Convert pool into all-weather 338.0 338.0 1
+ facility by constructing ar enclosure.
Keesler AFB, Miss- .---. --.... Bowling center-Construct a new 12-lane bowling 320. 5 320. 5 1
center to replace existing, inadequate facility.
Lackland AFB, Tex---....---.. Bowling center-Provide a new 32-lane bowling 854. 0 854. 0 1
center.
Sheppard AFB, Tex.....----------- Recreation library-Construct a 15,840 ft.a library 515.0 515.0 1
with all required support facilities.
Total, Air Training Com-_ ...................--------------------------------------------- 2, 027. 5 ---
mand.
Maxwell AFB, Ala-.....__...... Bowling center-Construct a new 16-lane bowling 370. 0 370.0 1
center.
Total, Air University ......................................--------------------------------------------------- 370.0
Andrews AFB, Md..----------_ Branch bank-Construct a 4,650-ft.2 banking
facility..................................... 370.6 370.6 6
Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C.... Bowling alley-16-lane addition to the existing 16
lanes...................................... 392.0 392.0 1
Total, Headquarters com-
mand-----......-----....--............................................................... 762.6 ...
Charleston AFB, S.C-............ NCO open mess-Add to and alter the NCO open
mess--------------------------------...................................... 413.8 413.8 2
Dover AFB, Del___-.---------- Youth center--Construct a 9,240-ft.2 youth center
facility-- -- 320.9 320.9 1
Norton AFB, Calif- ............. Youth center-Construct a 9,240-ft.2 facility ._.... 370.0 370.1 1
Travis AFB, Calif----.....-- -... Youth center-Construct a 14,440-ft.2youth center- 471.6 471.6 1
Total, Military Airlift Com-
mand . ---------------------------------------------------------- 1,576.3 ......
Hickam AFB, Hawaii............ Credit union-Construct a 6,020 ft.2 credit union.. 426.0 1,483.0 6
Branch bank-Replace existing bank with a new
7,500-ft.2facility_ ..---------- 400.0 .......... 6
Theater-Construct a 500 seat, 9,427-ft.2 replace-
ment theater__ - --..-...-..-........... . 657.0 .......... 5
Total, Pacific Air Forces ._-............-.......... ..... .................... 1,483.0...
Grand Forks AFB, N. Dak........ Consolidated swimming pool-Construct a 3,702-
ft. covered pool with a 2,592-ft.2 bath house.... 340.1 340.1 1
Malmstrom AFB, Mont ...--------- Consolidated swimming pool-Construct a 3,702-
ft.2covered pool with a 2,592-ft.2 bathhouse.... 340.0 340.0 1
Offutt AFB, Nebr. ---------- Child-care center-Construct a 10,500 ft.2 facility
to provide temporary care for dependent youth
of assigned military personnel............... 325.0 325.0 1
Plattsburgh AFB, N.Y........... Bowling center-Construct a preengineered steel
building to provide a 12-lane bowling center.... 360.0 360.0 1
Total, Strategic Air Com-
mand......--------------------------------------------------------- 1,365.1 ...
Homestead AFB, Fla............. Swimming pool-Construct a 10,509 ft2 airmen 545.0 545.0 1
pool with a 1,995 ft2 bathhouse.
Nellis AFB, Nev................. Swimming pool-Construct a 9,229 ft2 airmen 728.0 728.0 1
pool with a 1,993 ft2 bathhouse.
102
PT. III.-PROPOSED NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OVER $300,000
IFund source code: 1-Recreation or welfare funds; 2-Club/mess funds; 3--Commissary store excess surcharge funds;
4-Exchange funds; 5-Motion picture service funds; 6-Private funds]
Cost Total cost
(thou- (thou- Fund
Installation Project title sands) sands) source
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Shaw AFB, S.C................. Community center-Expand and add to exchange $960.0 $960.0 4
facilities to include additional retail store space
and new service outlets.
Total, Tactical Air Com- .......................................................-----------------------2,233.0 ..........
mand.
U.S. Air Force Academy-........ Golf course-Provide an 18-hole addition to the 650.0 650.0 i
existing 18-hole course.
Total, U.S. Air Force .-------..---...--....----------------------------------.......................................... 650.0 .........
Academy.
1 This project was estimated to cost less than $300,000 but based on bids received, the project exceeded this ceiling and
has been placed under contract (DODI 7700.18, dated, Mar. 9, 1972).
MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. SIKES. (d) A listing of all minor construction projects awarded
in the past year or currently pending approval by the Air Force.
[The information follows:]
103
Minor Construction Projects
Awarded or Approved in FY 1973
FY 1972 Approved Projects
Awarded in FY 1973
Project
Shemya
Keflavik
Robins
New Hampshire
Tracking Sta.
Los Angeles
Williams
Randolph
Lackland
Gunter
Norton
Altus
Mildenhall
Shemya
Kincheloe
Vandenberg
Davis-Monthan
England
MacDill
Langley
Kunsan
Udorn
ALASKA AIR COMMAND
Aircraft Navigational Aid
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Add to Aircraft Engine Shop
Add to Ready Crew Facility
Aircraft Arresting Barrier
AIR FORCE WIGISTICS COMMAND
Improve Depot Warehouse
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Warehouse
Noncommissioned Officer Open Mess
AIR TRAINING COMMAND
Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility
Aircraft Avionics Maintenance Facility
Training Facility
Interim Hospital Outpatient Clinic
AIR UNIVERSITY
Training Facility
MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND
Refueling Vehicle Parking
Aircrew Training Facility
STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND
Power Check Pad
Aircraft Fueling System
Add to Gym
Replace Water Well
Precision Measurement Equipment Shop
TACTICAL AIR COMMAND
Aircraft Arresting System
Munitions Maintenance Shop
Add to Munitions Administration Office
Sewage Treatment Plant
Arm/Disarm Facility
Data Processing Plant
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Aircraft Runup Facility
Elevated Water Storage
Award
$ 58,000
115,000
242,000
268,770
149,362
229,700
68,600
97,400
300,000
293,600
197,177
90,798
98,200
143,809
176,100
132,000
263,802
233,400
115,000
276,700
90,000
124,263
49,682
60,000
95,226
291,950
97,960
145,200
Base
Taegu
Osan
Bentwaters
Woodbridge
Ramstein
Hahn
Wiesbaden
Athenai
Rhein Main
Sembach
Torrejon
Bitburg
TOTAL
Project
Combat Operations Center
Aircraft Runup Fcility
'U.S. AIR FORCES EUROPE
Improve Avionics Maintenance Shop
Add to Squadron Operations
Interim Air Freight Terminal
Improve Data Processing Plant
Convert to Drug Prevention/ Detection lab
Personnel Support Facility
Interim Dependent Elementary School
Electronic Equipment Maintenance Shops
Add to Avionics Shop
Water Wells
Award
97,300
121,200
95,600
48,150
300,000
78,100
222,700
235,200
160,000
99,999
153,700
136,945
S6,22; ,59
Projects Approved in FY 1973
Projects Awarded in FY 1973
Projects Pending Award in FY 1974
ALASKAN AIR COMMAND
Alter Maint Hangar
Combat Operations Center
Measurement laboratory
Relocate Dormitory
Antenna Support
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Modify Radar Tower
Radar Support Facility
Aircraft Maintenance Shelter
Radar Support Facility (FAA)
Radar Support Facility (FAA)
Radar Support Facility
Alter Dining Hall
Alert Facility
Radar Support Facility (FAA)
Radar Support Facility (FAA)
Radar Support Facility (FAA)
Radar Tower (FAA)
Radar Support Facility (FAA)
Weapons Control
Alter Dormitory
Taxiway
Alert Shelter
Alert Hanpar
U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Fuel Oil Storage
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
Compressed Air Plant
Fuel Oil Storage
Liquid Fuel Pipeline
Depot Operations
Award Pending
$12,008,086 $7,858,850
$ 161,700
126,520
82,155
255,000
45,000
191,960
66,000
57,350
294,000
57,000
118,000
110,000
252,000
50,200
295,000
209,000
275,300
213,400
250,866
73,300
$ 95,800
142,600
219,500
145,400
190,400
285,600
199,600
75,600
TOTAL
Base
Elmendorf
Eielson
Galena
Shemya
Benton
Dauphin Is.
Ellington
El Paso
Lake Charles
Laredo
Mica Peak
New Orleans
Odessa.
Phoenix
Silver City
Slidell
Tyndall
Davis-Montha.n
Academy
Hill
Robins
Base Project Award Pending
Robins Fuel Oil Storage 215,000
Tinker Alter Communications Center 69,800
Fuel Oil Storage 276,700
Wright-Pat Alter Utility System 136,400
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Edwards Improve Security Facilities 78,600
Flight Line Substation 181,800
Eglin Alter Electrical System 65,700
Alter Maintenance Hanger 247,390
Vandenberg Range Operations Center 199,400
Westover Construct Vaults 149,800
Wright-Pat Alter Research Facility 252,000
Palehua Optical Telescope 196,100
Patrick Backup Power System 223,000
Holloman Weapons Guidance Testing 95,000
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Keesler Alter Communication Facilities 75,500
AIR UNIVERSITY
Maxwell Alter Communication Center 167,800
AIR TRAINING COMMAND
Keesler Coronary Care Unit 91,600
lackland Dog Training Facility 200,000
Lowry Correction Facility 109, 600
Judge Advocate Facility 96,400
Mather High Altitude Training 60,100
Randolph Computer Air Conditioning 61,200
Bergstrom Aircraft Shop 94,900
HEADQUARTERS COMMAND
Andrews Communications Center 87,200
Alter Heating Plants 196,600
Medical Evac Center 290,300
Bldg 3465 98,800
MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND
Altus AGE Shop 278,900
Communications Shop 278,800
Aircraft Shop 149,400
Scott Command & Control Facility 201,100
Intensive Care Unit 89,800
McClellan Electronic Overhaul Facility 151,225
McChord Pave Runway Shoulders 247,860
STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND
Andersen Ground Equipment Parking 63,000
Hardstand Lighting 299,000
Troop Camp 299,800
Aircraft Engine 'Shop 276,600
Warehouse 295,200
Auto Maint Shop 99,900
Ellsworth Warehouse 165,800
Kincheloe Base Personnel Office 225,700
Offutt Global Weather Center 256,200
Base
Vaadenberg
Plattsburgh
Davis -Monthan
Bergstrom
Cannon
England
Homestead
Langley
Little Rock
Luke
Mt Home
Project
Special Training Facilities
Flight Simulator
High Alt Trng
TACTICAL AIR COMMAND
Electronic Equipment Shop
Auto Maintenance Shop
Relocate Warehouses
Munitions Storage Facilities
Aircraft Maintenance Shop
Improve Road
Shortfield Runway
Alert Crew Facility
Transportation Terminal
Shortfield Runway
Water Well
Flight Simulator Training
Flight Simulator Facility
U.S. AIR FORCE SOUTHERN COMMAND
Airman Dormitory
U.S. AIR FORCES EUROPE
Security Facilities
Steam Lines
Aircraft Fueling System
Relocate School
Maint Facility
AGE Shop
Maint Dock
Water Supply
Power Check Pad
Data Processing Plant
Helicopter Parking
Data Processing Plant
Medical Facility
Aircraft Arrest Barrier
Hydrant Fueling System
Relocate School
Warehouse
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Water Wells
Test Stand
Liquid Fuel Pipeline
Noise Suppressor
Air Freight Terminal
Special Fuels
Airmen Dormitory
Officer Quarters
Wing Headquarters
Security Police Operations
Airmen Dormitories
Officer Quarters
Noise Suppressor
Ground Defense Facility
Alter Laboratory
Civilian Personnel Office
Computer Facility
Howard
Hahn
Incirlik
Ramstein
Torrejon
Zaragoza
Aviano
Woodbridge
Alconbury
Upper Heyford
Mildenhall
Spangdahlem
Bitburg
Clark
Award
197,200
206,900
87,200
80,200
241,500
134,100
66,130
298,700
95,000
117,040
273,900
82,900
201,000
231,300
300,000
85,000
99,990
298,000
170,800
230,100
144,000
65,200
97,200
295,500
99, 400
76,000
72,300
Pending
284,300
217,400
284,400
92,500
125,400
79,900
68,100
259,300
69,200
109,500
109,800
156,350
96,800
87,800
98, 500
194,000
110,400
85,800
87,000
158,100
271,200
143,200
117, 000
281,200
107
CONSTRUCTION FROM OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. SIKES. (e) A listing of all facilities constructed with research
and development, working fund, or procurement money--other than at
Government-owned, contractor-operated plants.
[The information follows:]
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER THAN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
'wo facilities will be constructed at Kirtland APB, N. Mex., using research
and development funds. They are: (1) A horizontally polarized dipole electro-
magnetic pulse simulator-$703,000 estimated cost-and (2) a threat-level elec-
trdmagnetic pulse simulator-$3,680,000 estimated cost. These facilities will be
capable of simulating the electromagnetic propagation effects of nuclear weapon
tletonations. Large aircraft systems, such as the advanced airborne command
pst, airborne warning and control system, and the B-1, will undergo surviva-
ility/vulnerability testing in these two outdoor test facilities. The Air Force
notified appropriate congressional committees and provided descriptive data on
DD forms 1391. These are the only facilities to be constructed from the fund
sources cited.
CONSTRUCTION IN VIETNAM
Mr. SIKES. (f) A listing of any construction in Vietnam performed
in the past year or pending approval.
General REILLY. We will supply those.
[The information follows:]
CONSTRUCTION IN VIETNAM
There has been no construction supporting U.S. Air Force units in Vietnam
for the past year. A listing of construction projects supporting the Vietnamization
program follows:
VIETNAMIZATION PROJECTS
Cost Status
Project:
Dependent shelters --------.. ---------........ ---- $1, 200, 000 Approved, funds reserved.
Dependent community facilities............................... 1, 000, 000 Do.
Enhance plus: 1
Bien Hoa Air Base....................................... 1,946,000 Scheduled completion November
1973.
Pleiku Air Base......................................... 111,000 Do.
Tan Son Nhut Air Base--------..-------..--------............................. 272,000 Do.
Da Nang Air Base---.....-------------------------- - 18,000 Do.
1 The Enhance plus program provides operational facilities for the Vietnamese Air Force.
Mr. SIKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Obey.
Mr. Crockett, I think we can let you go. Thank you very much
for your help.
Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you, sir. It is a pleasure to be here.
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Mr. SIKES. Insert in the record pages III, IV, XI, and XIII.
[The pages follow:]
108
PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE STATEMENT
The basis for the appropriation request for $311.9 million is set forth in the
following tabulation:
Millions
New authorization ------------------------------------------- $278.9
Open and permanent authorization-------------------------------- 33.0
Advance planning------------------------------------------ 18. O0
Minor construction--------------------------- ---------- 15.
Total obligational authority-------------------------------- 311. 9
In addition to the total unobligational authority requested for fiscal year 1974,
the appropriation program for fiscal year 1974 includes $2 million for reim-
bursements for a total program of $313.9 million.
CATEGORY DETAILS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1974 PROGRAM
Funding clearance is requested in fiscal year 1974 for projects totaling $311,-
900,000. Individual line items fall into construction categories as follows:
IDollar amounts in millions)
Percentage
of total
Amount program
Category of facilities:
Operational------------ ---------------------------------------------------.. $52.6 16.9
Training-------------------------------------------------------------- 7.8 2.5
Research and development--------------------------------------------- 10.0 3.2
Supply-------------------------------11.73.
Hospital and medical ---------------------------------------------------- 36.7 11.7
Administrative--------------------------------------------------------- 31. 2 10.0
Bachelor housing produ-------------------...................--............................ ------------------------------39.7 12.7
Research ammunityd develo.........-------------------........-------------------------------............................. 28.4 9.1
Utilities----.......-------------.....................................-----------------------------------------.... 12.1 3.9
Pollution-------------------------------------------------------------- 9.8 3.1
Planning ------------ ............................ ..................... . 15.0 4.8
Minor c struction .... .. ......... ...................... 18.0 5.8
Total obligational authority requested-----------------------------------................................ 311. 9 100.0
109
PROGRAM 320 SUMMARY BY COMMAND
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Command
Appropriation
request
(thousands)
Aerospace Defense CommandL_______________ .. . _. ____ $8, 794
Air Force Communications Service..................-------------------------------- 3, 963
Air Force Logistics Command---------------------------------- 60, 934
Air Force Systems Command----- ------ ----------------- 9, 062
Air Training Command--------------------------------------- 56, 282
Air University ----------------------------------------------- 5, 462
Alaskan Air Command ----------------------- 8, 658
Headquarters Command-- ------------------------------------ 18, 435
Military Airlift Command-------------------------------------- 12, 416
Pacific Air Forces-------------------------------------------- 7, 331
Strategic Air Command --------------------------------------25, 738
Tactical Air Command----------------------------------------17, 703
U.S. Air Force Academy------------ ----------------------------- 645
Various (pollution abatement) ------------- ----------------------9.070
Air installation compatible use zones----------------------------- 2, 000
Various (section 302) ---------------------------- ------------- 1,000
Total----------------------------------------------- 247, 493
PROGRAM 330 SUMMARY BY COMMAND
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Command
Appropriation
request
(thousands)
Aerospace Defense Command----------------- ---------------------- $1, 355
Pacific Air Forces-------------------------------------------- 11, 788
U.S. Air Forces, Europe-----..---------------------------------- 15, 925
Southern Command--------------------------------- 1, 038
Security Service---------- ---------------------------------------- 221
Various (pollution abatement) -------------------------------------- 750
World-wide Communications-------------------------------------- 330
Total ------------------------------------------------ 31,407
GENERAL AUTHORIZATION
PLANNING AND DESIGN
Mr. SIKES. Insert page XV in the record.
[The page follows:]
I. DATE A. DOPARTMIT S. INSTALLATION
AF FY 1974,MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PLANNING AND DESIGN
4. COMMAND OR MANAGE EMNT BUREAU I. INSTALLATION CONTROL NUM..R !. STATE/COUNTRY
N/A N/A VARIOUS
S TATUS S. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY S. COUNTY (U.S.) 10. NEAREST CITY
N/A N/A N/A N/A
II. MIlION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 1!. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICE ENLISTED CIVILIAN OFPICt I[NLIST[ OIFICERI NLISTS CIVLIAN TOTAL
SUPPORT FACILITIES (u w (s ( () (q) () () (,)
As OF031 December _
. PLANNED (md )
Ii. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (*000) IMPROVEMENT (i000) TOTAL (000)
(L IL r!) r(
S oWNED
. LEASES AND EASEMENTS
c. INVENTORY TOTAL (EASpI Indn) AS O So JUNE IS
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY
S. AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
I ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEARS
.- GRAND TOTAL ( d + +. 0
A.' SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(!00) (100)
010-111 Planning and Design IS 31 USC 723 Is 18,000
TOTAL 18,000
'2.8, coo
Pae N.
DD. AI.1390
Mr. SIKEs. What is the unobligated balance in the Air Force's
planning acount as of the last available reporting date ?
Mr. LEE. The unobligated balance on April 30 was $8.3 million.
Mr. SIKES. What obligations in planning funds do you now antici-
pate for the remainder of fiscal year 1973 ?
Mr. LEE. Of the $8.3 million, approximately $6 million will be
obligated prior to the 30th of June.
Mr. 'SIES. What is the current estimate for planning obligations
during fiscal year 1974 ?
Mr. LEE. About $20 million.
Mr. SIKEs. Will the medical facilities modernization program have
a major impact on your rate of obligations in the planning account
over the next few years ?
Mr. LEE. No; it will not.
NEW GENERATION HOSPITAL
Mr. SIKEs. What is the design status of the new generation
hospital?
General REILLY. The studies have just been completed for develop-
ing physical requirements and criteria for the hospital. We expect to
initiate design early this fall.
Mr. SIKES. How much has the Air Force spent on planning for this
hospital, and how much more will you spend ?
General REILLY. It is something less than a half a million dollars
to date, sir. It will probably take another $6 million to complete the
design effort.
Mr. SIKES. Tell us for the record what you mean by a new genera-
tion hospital and what new techniques it will use.
[The information follows:]
NEW GENERATION HOSPITAL
The new generation of military hospitals program was initiated by the Secre-
tary of Defense in 1968 and assigned to the Air Force, as the executive agent,
in December 1971 for implementation. It encompasses the bringing together of
Industry and Department of Defense professionals in medicine, health care ad-
ministration, architecture and engineering, data automation, and other dis-
ciplines to develop an innovative test-bed facility at Travis AFB, Calif., that will
employ the powers of automation and mechanization to improve the operating
efficiency of the DOD health care delivery system in an environment favorable
to improving the quality of patient care.
The NGMH facility will be designed, constructed, equipped, and staffed to
provide total health care to authorized beneficiaries, and to provide guidance
for future health care delivery systems of the nation in four major areas. These
broad areas are:
(1) Complete community health care service.
(2) Clinical specialty referral and consultant center.
(3) University level teaching and research center.
(4) Prototype test bed for future systems.
The goals established by the Department of Defense were to improve the ef-
fectiveness of health care delivery, improve the efficiency of health care opera-
tion, reduce or at least stabilize the long-term costs of operating the system, and
maintain or improve the quality of health care.
20-632 0 - 73 - 8
By employing newly developed advanced planning techniques based on exten-
sive systems analysis, and focusing on providing the facility at Travis Air Force
Base in California, the program objectives can be achieved. The facility being
planned will achieve operating economies through the use of life-cycle costing
techniques as advocated by GAO and others. It will also house a totally inte-
grated data automation system dedicated to patient service.
The local authorized population will be provided complete medical and dental
service in both outpatient and inpatient status. Extensive consultative capability
will insure the highest quality of care and will reduce referral of local patients
to other facilities to a minimum.
The presence of nationally certified specialists supported by the latest equip-
ment and technology will provide a referral service for authorized patients of
physicians at other facilities of the Department of Defense. Utilization of new
sophisticated technology will provide the center consultants with the capability
to advise and assist physicians at distant facilities in direct patient care, this
being accomplished via a proposed live two-way audiovisual interaction of the
consultant and the patient and his attending physician. Patient referral and
remote consultation extends available expert health care to more patients.
Nationally recognized clinical specialty teaching programs will stimulate con-
tinued high quality of care, and significantly contribute an input in specialty
manpower within the military in an all-volunteer force.
Designed and equipped as a testbed for new concepts of delivering health
care, the project should provide guidance for future military and civilian systems.
The implementation of automation and new communication systems plus new
concepts in the utilization of personnel will provide an environment for change
in the traditional delivery of health care. Designed in a modular fashion, the
benefits derived could be extracted for use in any future civilian or military health
care system. Key to this concept is the ability to rapidly expand or contract as
advances or changes occur in the health professions.
HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER TUNNEL
Mr. SIKES. Will there be sufficient funds to proceed with the design
of the HIRT facility in a timely manner ?
General REILLY. There will be sufficient funds to initiate the design.
We presume if the project is added to the 1975 program, the OSD will
add the necessary planning money as well. But there are funds avail-
able to initiate design.
Mr. SIKEs. For the record, tell us what the HIRT facility is.
[The information follows:]
HIRT is the acronym for the high Reynolds number tunnel. HIRT is a tran-
sonic wind tunnel which will provide aerodynamic flows simulating the flight
conditions of advanced, large, high-performance aeronautical systems. The fa-
cility will augment the extensive wind tunnel complex at the Arnold Engineer-
ing Development Center and provide a national capability for testing at Reynolds
numbers that aerospace vehicles actually experience. Reynolds number is a
mathematical relationship that considers in addition to airspeed, the size of the
airplane, the density and viscosity of the air at the flight altitude. With proper
mach number and Reynolds number, the data obtained in the wind tunnel using
a model will accurately predict actual flight performance. This is very im-
portant in the transonic speed regime and cannot be evaluated in present wind
tunnels.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIKES. Insert in the record page XVIII.
[The page follows:]
1. DATE .. DP.hRTMa LA
AF 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
INSTALLATION
MINOR CONSTRUCTION
A. COMMAND OR MANAN.T UREAU . INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER . ITATICOUNTRY
N/A N/A VARIOUS
T. STATUS I. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY , COUNTY (U.S.) 10. NEAREST CITY
N/A N/A N/A N/A
II. MISSION OR MAJR FUNCTIONS IS. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OrFICER [LIerto CIvILIAN OFFICEn ENLISTe[ OFFICER NI.ISToI cIvILIAN TOTAL
SUPPORT FACILITIES r I W I (.) (4 I ( I ( ) () I .) ( 5)
* AS Or. 31 December _
Pb. LANNO(End P )
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LADD COST (*000) IMPROVEMENT (00) TOTAL (000)
. owNan
A. LEASES AND ASEASEMHNTS
C. INVENTORY TOTAL (Eg pI iRnd I r) AS OFr o JUNE I
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YIT IN INVIMTONY
*, AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
L ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEARS
I. GRAND TOTAL (c+ d. *+ 0
14. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGkAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(oo ) (o000)
h e d' f S h
010-211 Minor Construction LS 10 USC 2674 LS 15,000
TOTAL 15,000
D D o7.1390
PEe NO._
114
Mr. SIKEs. What utilization has the Air Force made of the authority
to build from minor construction projects which are quickly amortized ?
General REILLY. I think to date we have received approval either
from the Secretarv of Air Force or Secretary of Defense for about
$1.2 million for this type of project.
ACCESS ROADS
Mr. SIKES. What is the status of the Air Force's access roads ac-
count?
Mr. LEE. The present unobligated balance is about $7 million and
all of those funds are committed against access roads at Wright-Pat-
terson, Robins Air Force Base, and-I will supply the others for the
record.
[The information follows:]
UNOBLIGATED BALANCE FOR ACCEss ROADS
The unobligated balance for defense access roads is committed by the Federal
Highway Administration to the following projects:
Scott AFB, Ill-------------------------------------------------- $754, 960
Robins AFB, Ga-------------------------------------- 1, 392,288
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio-------.-----------------------------1, 500. 000
Grand Forks AFR, N. Dak---------------------- ------------- - 1,950, 000
Kelly AFB, Tex------------------ -------1,000,000
Completion of others--------------------------------------------- 494. 959
Total --------------------------------------------------- 7, 092. 207
GENERAL QUEsTIONs
PRICES OF FISCAL YEAR 1974 PROJECTS
Mr. SIxEs. What amount of cost escalation have you taken into
account in pricing out the projects in the Air Force's fiscal year 1974
request ?
General REILLY. They are showing about an 8-percent increase over
the costs of January 1973.
Mr. SIxES. To what date are you projecting these costs ?
General REILLY. We are speaking of the spring of 1974.
Mr. SIKES. Do you feel these cost projections are realistic ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; we do.
Mr. SIKES. Do you think you can live with them?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIREs. What has been your bid experience in recent fiscal years
in comparing programed amount versus actual cost ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, our projects based on bids have
been running between 90 and 100 percent of the programed amount.
As I mentioned earlier, the most recent experience for the 1973 pro-
gram has been about 96 or 97 percent of the programed amount.
Mr. SIxES. Are you getting full programed scope within the dol-
lars allowed, or have you found it necessary to reduce the scope of some
of the buildings?
General REILLY. It has been necessary to reduce scope in just a very
few instances, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SIKES. Tell us how you will apply the area cost factor to projects
in fiscal 1974.
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, based upon pricing guidance de-
veloped by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, we determine the
appropriate costs to a cost index of 1, which is comparable to the
Washington, D.C., area, and adjust it upward or downward simply
by multiplying by the area factor to take care of the geographical
cost increase or decrease.
Mr. SIKES. IS it reasonable to use the area cost factor when you are
employing prefabricated or preengineered buildings ?
Colonel RUTLAND. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir; it is reasonable to use it.
However, we apply a factor of 85 percent to the unit cost for a con-
ventional-style facility. We do find on overseas construction, using
preengineered facilities, that the construction costs of getting the
structure there essentially offsets that 15 percent.
Mr. SIKEs. What allowance for contingencies have you included in
the estimates for each project ?
Colonel RUTLAND. We use 5 percent on contingencies, 6 percent on
supervision inspection and overhead.
BASE-LOADING PROJECTIONS
Mr. SIKES. Do the justification sheets before us, which will be in-
serted in the record, reflect the long-range base loadings which will
result from the recent base-realinement announcements ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; they do.
Mr. SIKEs. One of the major actions which will affect base employ-
ment is the establishment of technology repair centers at the various
bases of the Air Force Logistics Command. How were your base-load-
ing figures for these bases computed ?
Colonel MORROw. The establishment of our technology repair cen-
ters affects only the maintenance portion of the depots, which repre-
sent about some 30 percent or less of the total people.
We have in effect in the maintenance area, which will be somewhat
around 5 percent in the next year, reducing on down to negligible per-
centage of figures shown on the base impact.
Mr. SIKEs. Have you reevaluated all bachelor housing projects re-
quested in the fiscal year 1974 program for the effects of base realine-
ments on military populations ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, we have.
Mr. SIKES. Are there general questions on my right ?
Mr. LONG. What did you come up with when you made that re-
evaluation ? Did you make any modifications to your plans?
General REILLY. It had some bearing. We just made sure our require-
ments were tuned to the adjusted strength of our bases. We did this
during the planning process and before the program was put to-
gether.
Mr. LONG. Could you give us some detail for the record on how this
modified your plans?
General REILLY. Yes.
[The information follows:]
BASE REALINEM NT CONSIDERATIONS
OSD generally limits new construction of bachelor spaces to 90 percent of our
projected requirements. These requirements are established by applying the re-
sults of our bachelor survey data to projected manpower authorizations. All
requirements shown in individual DD form 1391's reflect consideration of the
recently announced base realinements with one exception. Dover Air Force Base,
Del. requirements change from 1,808 spaces to 1,967. This will change their
adequate housing level to 83 percent vice 90 percent after completion of the fiscal
year 1974 requested project. The Air Force elected not to revise the fiscal year
1974 project request pending further evaluation of off-base community assets. We
will retain sufficient substandard assets to cover our requirements pending this
reevaluation. An adjustment to building disposal plans was made and disposal
of 19-structures as stated in the DD form 1391 remains firm.
Mr. LoNG. I think we are all afraid you might be building some
housing on bases which you might abandon some years from now.
So we want to make sure you are not.
REQUIREMENT FOR FOUR-BEDROOM HOUSES
You point out you are building a lot of four-bedroom houses. I
believe the population is taking another turn now and people are
having fewer children. How far into the future are your plans
projected ? Have you made demographic studies with the help of real
demographers in making these plans on what your two-bedroom and
three-bedroom and four-bedroom needs will be?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Our projection is 5 years in the future and is predi-
cated upon the population trend of 1979.
Mr. LONG. Only 5 years ?
Mr. JOHnSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Of course the houses are going to last a lot longer than
that?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Who do you have advising you on the demographic
structure?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We go to FHA. FHA concurs in our bedroom com-
positions of 'all of our projects predicated upon their surveys of the
particular localities.
Mr. LONG. You know what I am talking about, don't you ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. LONG. Does FHA look into that aspect of it ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I assume they do.
Mr. LONG. You hope they do.
Mr. JOHnSTON. Yes.
Mr. LONG. But you don't know for sure ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.
Mr. LONG. I would ask, for the record, if you can give us some in-
formation about what they do, or what you do, or what you ought to
do to make sure that we aren't planning a lot of four-bedroom houses
for the future when people may not be having that many children.
I don't know if it is true, but I gather the population pattern has been
taking some very drastic turns lately.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Under the present day conditions our require-
ments run about 45 percent for two-bedroom units. However, in the
past years we have built more toward two or three bedroom units
than for four-bedroom units.
Mr. LONG. I don't doubt your immediate demand would be for four
bedrooms, but I am in doubt as to whether that pattern will bear up.
I think you ought to look at the somewhat more distant future if you
assume these houses are going to last longer than 5 years. Do you?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We assume a lot longer than 5 years. However, with
an all-volunteer force it might get more prolific than in the past.
[The information follows:]
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have been informally advised that HUD and FHA are not
making long-term guesses on future bedroom requirements. Surveys conducted by
HUD concern themselves with census statistics and family sizes in particular
localities extended for normal 5-year periods. A thorough review of Air Force
families sizes indicate little or no change in future years. Our program this year
which contains 1766 four-bedroom units is the smallest Air Force program since
fiscal year 1970. Of our total inventory of some 150,000 units only 13 percent are
four or more bedroom units. Even though we reflect a sizable requirement for
two-bedroom units we feel that units of this type are more readily available in the
local community, at prices our personnel can afford, than larger four-bedroom
units. HUD concurs in this determination and recently has nonconcurred in the
construction of two-bedroom units on some of our bases. The inclusion of these
larger units in our yearly program also stems from the recommendation of the
committee advising the service not to build two-bedroom units.
Mr. LONG. Another question is what impact the volunteer force has
on the type of housing you are planning compared with another type
of force.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Right.
Mr. LONG. Whether it is a volunteer force or not, does that have
much to do with your officer housing program ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Our officer housing program stays pretty steady.
Mr. LONG. Regardless whether it is all-volunteer or not?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. LONG. So far as enlisted personnel are concerned the picture may
change ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Maybe you ought to say something about that for the
record, too.
Mr. JOHNSTON. All right.
[The information follows:]
IMPACT OF VOLUNTEER FORCE ON HOUSING
Mr. JOHNSTON. Prior to implementation of an all-volunteer force, we found
many young men enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted. Many of these
personnel would serve only a 4-year enlistment, be discharged and then return to
civilian life. Under these conditions a part of the enlisted population was con-
sidered unstable or temporary. Under the all-volunteer force we feel that many
more first termers will marry, raise families and remain in the service for 20 to
30 years. Our past experience indicates that long-term service families are the
ones having three and four children which will produce the requirement for the
four-bedroom units already constructed or to be constructed on Air Force bases.
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Mr. SixEs. Let us begin the line items. Insert in the record pages I
through III of the justification book for projects inside the United
States.
[The pages follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM-
FIscAL YEAR 1974
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11514
All projects in the Air Force fiscal year 1974 military construction program
submittal have been reviewed for potential ecological and environmental impact
in accordance with section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
118
of 1969 (Public Law 91-190). No individual projects were found to require en-
vironmental statements except the following:
Command: ATC, Lowry AFB, Colo., Air Force Accounting and
Finance Center----......----------------------------------- $20, 350, 000
EvALUATION OF FLOOD HAZARDS
All projects in the program have been evaluated in compliance with Executive
Order No. 11296 and have been sited to avoid uneconomic, hazardous, or unneces-
sary use of flood plains and to minimize the risk of flood losses.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM--FISCAL YEAR 1974
SUMMARY BY COMMAND INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Proposed program
Command : (thousands of dollars)
Aerospace Defense Command-------------------------- ----- $8, 794
Air Force Communications Service----------------------------- 3,963
Air Force Logistics Command ------------------------------- 60,934
Air Force Systems Comman ------------------------------- 9, 062
Air Training Command-------------------------------------- 56,282
Air University-------,---------------------------- ----------- 5.462
Alaskan Air Command------------------------------------- 8, 658
Headquarters Command------- --------------------------- 18, 435
Military Airlift Command-------- --------------------- 12, 416
Pacific Air Forces---------------------------------------- 7, 331
Strategic Air Command------ --------------------------- 25, 738
Tactical Air Command -----------------------------------17, 703
U.S. Air Force Academy ------------------------------------ 645
Various (pollution abatement) ------------------------------- 9, 070
Air installation compatible use zones------------------------- 2, 000
Total inside the United States--------------------------- 246, 493
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Mr. SIKES. Insert in the record page 1.
[The page follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM-FISCAI
YEAR 1974
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Proposed program
Installation: (thousands of dollars)
Peterson Field, Colo---------_ -----------------------------------7, 843
Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla---------------------------------- 951
Total .------------------------------------------------------ 8 794
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (ZONE OF INTERIOR)
The primary mission of the Aerospace Defense Command (ADC) is to dis-
charge Air Force responsibilities for the defense of the United States against
aerospace attack. This program requests $8,794,000 for eight projects in support
of ADC host responsibilities at two Air Force locations. Additionally, section
302 of the program includes $1 million for radar support facilities at various
worldwide installations. The total ADC construction program is $9,794,000.
PETERSON FIELD, COLO.
Mr. SIKES. On Peterson Field, insert in the record page 2.
[The page follows:]
I. DATE . pARYNMT
AF
FT 194 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
T INSTALLATION
PETERSON FIELD
4. CCYAND OR MANAEMIMT UNEAU I INDITALLATION CONTROL NUIUm A. ITATICOUNTRY
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND TDKA COLORADO
7. STATUS 5. YVAn OP INITIAL OCCUPANCY I. COUNTY (U.J IA. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE 1942/1951 EL PASO 6 MILES EAST OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
tI. MISION On AS n NiNCTION. II PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
SUPPORT PERATIONS FOR: PC E ....... . ... ..e..N . . .NLITD. CIv.ILIN OCER AN S OICESR eIEa CIVILIAN TOTAL
E1L Nf(l (a U. (4 I I (4) I(I) q() (I )
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND HEADQUARTERS ," ASo. 31 DO.mb. -M 1 774 43901 30 0 25 25 0 8 130
aPLANNED(.OSrr 76 71 478 89 30 0 25 25 0 8,246
NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENSE COMMAND HEADQUARTERS a. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (000) IMPROVEMENT (0110 TOTAL (400)
S( o (141 21. 41
LAe{. AND AsUNT 981 11) 0
0. INVENTORY TOTAL ( *ro.I IeadR 'r) AS OP 0 JUNE I1S
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT Y ... .v oRy (Excludes amhly Housing $,72,o000) ,
. AUTHORIZATION REquESTEDIN THIS PROeRAM843
I ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT YEAR s
4 GRAND TOTAL f . d .. 0
1. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROOkAM FUNOINO PROGRAM
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
COE NO.Y PROJECT TITLE PF r i COMMAND MEASURE SCOSE COST SCOPE COT
oes NO. (45) (50)
S6 d I A &
219-94A Base Facilities Maintenance Complex I SF 69,080 1,840 69,080 1,840
722-211 Airmen Dormitories I MN 180 989 180 989
740-266 Commissary I SF 73,500 2,270 73,500 2,270
740-617 NCO Open Mess I SF 27,800 1,379 27,800 1,379
740-633 Post Office I SF 7,020 338 7,020 338
800-000 Utilities I IS IS 1,027 IS 1,027
TOTAL 7,843 7,843
- -,- -
D D, a0'"," 1390
P. o. 2
120
PETERSON FIELD
The first installation to be considered in the Aerospace Defense Command
(ADC) program is Peterson Field, headquarters of ADC and the North American
Air Defense Command, located 6 miles east of Colorado Springs, 001oo. The mili-
tary construction program contains a request for $7,843,000 consisting of six
projects as follows:
The first item, a base facilities maintenance complex of 69,080 ft2 is required
to replace widely dispersed substandard structures that provide severely limited
space.
The second item provides living quarters for 180 female enlisted personnel.
Peterson Field has no dormitories to adequately house WAF airmen presently
billeted at Ent AFB.
The third item is for a commissary of 73,500 ft2. Commissary activities are lo-
cated in old, substandard facilities that are functionally inadequate and provide
cumbersome, limited arrangements for customer service.
The fourth item requested is for an NOO open mess of 27,800 ft2. Substandard
structures presently utilized, designed for a 10-year service life, have been in
use for 22 years. The already overtaxed Peterson Field facilities will be totally
inadequate upon consolidation of Ent AFB activities at Peterson Field.
The fifth item is for a post office of 7,020 ft2. Postal services are housed in
antiquated, substandard facilities approximately one-third the base requirement
for present and projected mail traffic.
The last item is for utilities in the amount of $1,027,000 to support the above-
mentioned projects.
ADC-PETERSON AFB, COLO.-DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent
complete
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Base facilities maintenance complex- . -..__._- $87, 800 20
Airmen dormitories ..... -------------------------------------------------- 63, 000 40
Commissary--------------------------------------- 105, 000 85
NCO open mess....... .... ... .................----------------- 80, 000 40
Post Office -------------------------------------------------------- 19,000 85
Utilities ....______._ ------------------ 55, 000 80
Enlisted Barracks Summary, Peterson Field, Colo.
1 Men/women
Total requirement -------------------------------------------- 1, 555
Existing substandard------------------------------------------ 191
Existing adequate--------------------------------------------- 888
Funded, not in inventory 0------------------------------------------
Adequate assets---------------------------------------------- 888
Deficiency ---------------------------------------------------- 667
Fiscal year 1974 program ----------------------------------------180
Barracks spaces occupied (average) March 31, 1973----1-------------- , 041
1 90 ft2 per man-permanent party E2-4.
a 135 ft per man-permanent party E5 -6.
a Includes 186 personnel in private housing.
Mr. SIKES. The request is for $7,843,000 for a base facilities main-
tenance complex, dormitories, commissary, and an NCO open mess,
post office, and utilities.
Discuss the schedule for the move out of Ent Air Force Base to
Peterson Field.
MOVE OUT OF ENT AIR FORCE BASE
General REILY. Our present plan is that by the end of fiscal year
1976, contingent upon the approval of our 1974 and 1975 programs,
we would hope to be able to remove Air Force activities from Ent Air
Force Base.
If I may, we prepared a couple of charts to give you the status of
the Ent to Peterson move.
This is a picture of Ent Air Force Base. The area bounded by the
heavy black line is owned in fee by the Air Force, 26.6 acres. You see
the two areas that are leased from the city, the area to the north, a
little over 12 acres, and 2 acres to the southwest.
Those facilities which have been shaded in yellow represent areas
from which, with completion of the approved 1973 program, activities
will have been relocated from that area.
You see in the overlay the additional areas that will be vacated upon
completion of the 1974 items at Peterson Field-dormitory, base engi-
neer facilities, post office, commissary, and NCO open mess.
The total yellow under the overlay, that is through the 1973 pro-
gram, represents about 167,000 square feet of structures to be vacated.
An additional 105,000 square feet can be vacated as a result of the 1974
program, or through 1974 about 270,000 square feet.
We now see with the additional overlay upon completion of the 1974
we will be able to release that entire 12 acre tract.
Mr. SIKES. On the north side ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. Back to the city. As I said, with the com-
pletion of the 1975 program we can vacate the other area.
Mr. SIKES. At the end of the 1975 program you will have vacated
everything ?
General REILY. Yes, sir, the Air Force activities will be out of there.
This is a picture of Peterson Field, the runway and apron complex
shaded in gray. You see again in yellow the areas that have been
involved in new construction and various projects approved through
the 1973 program. With the overlay, shown in red, the additional items
that are being requested in this program. The large area in yellow, of
course, is family housing.
You can see we have reached the point to where we have done quite
a lot of construction at Peterson and are well on our way in completing
this phased move we have been working on for so many years.
COMMISSARY
Mr. SIKES. IS the commissary proposed at Peterson sized to meet the
projected workload ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. SIXEs. What other commissaries are there in the Colorado
Springs area ?
Generally REILLY. We have other commissaries at Fort Carson, oper-
ated by the Army and there is a commissary also at the Air Force
Academy.
Mr. SIKEs. What is the distance from Peterson Field in each
instance ?
General REILLY. FOrt Carson is 15 miles. The Air Force Academy is
20 miles.
Mr. SIKES. IS there any interchange of personnel using the
commissaries?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, I think there is.
122
In Colorado Springs, using the Peterson Commissary, we have peo-
ple from all the Services. The Air Force Academy and Fort Carson
commissaries are more or less restricted to their respective personnel.
Mr. SIKEs. Now, if you move the commissary away from Colorado
Springs where the retired population lives, do you expect sales from
this population to decrease ?
General REIiLY. I am sure it would be a substantial reduction if it
were moved any great distance from the Colorado Springs area.
Colonel Mansperger, do you have any feel of the retired contribu-
tion to the commissary sales ?
Colonel MANSPERGER. There is considerable sales to the population
there. Since there is a saving in the neighborhood of 35 percent, I think
they would go the extra few miles to Peterson Air Force Base. Not
only that, our experience has been that when we build a new commis-
sary, the sales go up from about 30 to 50 percent because of the better
accessibility to it from the parking lot and decreased waiting lines.
So I do not expect the sales or service to the people to go down, be-
cause we do move the commissary out of the Ent area over to Peterson
Air Force Base.
Mr. SIxES. The Army is reducing its personnel associated with Safe-
guard to the Colorado Springs area. Has the Ent commissary sup-
ported this population heretofore ?
General RmrLY. Yes, sir, it has.
Because the Army people in Colorado Springs and those that live in
Colorado Springs I am sure would stop there.
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SiKEs. Provide for the record the contemplated fiscal year 1975
and fiscal year 1976 programs at Peterson Field.
[The information follows:]
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PETERSON FIELD
Fiscal year 1975 and fiscal year 1976 military construction facilities being
considered for Peterson Field are as follows :
Amount
Fiscal year and item Scope (thousands)
1975:
Photo lab_----------------_------------------- 8,435 SF $525
Clothing sales. _--_- _--------__-_------_ -- _ 6,400 SF 258
Education center------------.-...-....... ...----------------------. 17, 500 SF 641
Officer open mess_ _._....... .. . 36, 000 SF 1,504
VOQ.- 66 MN 1,340
Utilities------------------------------------------------------------ LS 1, 000
Total fiscal year 1975 ..-------------... ----------------------------...----------------- 5, 268
1976:
Service club_ . _ ___........ _. ... ... ..... ... . 27, 800 SF 1,117
Utilities . . . . . LS 500
Field training .... --------------------------------------------------- 4,320 SF 150
Squadron operations -.. 33,000 SF 957
Apron ------------------------------------------------------- 20,000 SY 400
Base warehouse___ . .-.-.-.-. ........................... 100, 000 SF 1,000
Total fiscal year 1976........------------------------....... ...---------------------------------- 4,124
Grand total.---- --------... ----- 9,392
BASE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COMPLEX
Mr. SIKES. What is the current civil engineer maintenance arrange-
ment for the Ent-Peterson complex ?
General REILLY. At the present time they are split between the two
areas. We still have certain functions that you saw at Ent Air Force
Base. They have an advanced activity at Peterson. It is split in a
very uneconomical operation at the present time.
Mr. SIRES. What efforts has the Air Force made to consolidate real
property maintenance with the Army and the Navy in the area?
General REILLY. A number of things have been done.
We have joint Army-Air Force contracts for water and electric
utility services with the city of Colorado Springs. There is also an
interservice support agreement whereby Ent Air Force Base has been
providing engineering services and facility maintenance support for
the Naval Training Center in Colorado Springs; also a joint use of
mobile construction equipment and engineering shop equipment.
In addition, certain common materials for real property main-
tenance, such as ready-mix concrete, aggregates, lumber, and so forth,
are being procured for all of the services on a joint contract.
A local interdepartmental real property maintenance consolidation
committee, is constantly looking at other areas in which real property
maintenance activities can be consolidated.
Mr. SIKES. Is there room for additional consolidation of functions
in the area ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. I am sure there are other things we can
do. However, I do not think that we could expect to have a single
consolidated real property maintenance activity for all of it.
Mr. SIKEs. Would greater success in consolidating these functions
reduce the requirement for the base consolidated maintenance facility
at Peterson Field ?
General REILLY. Not below that which we have programed. We feel
this would be the minimum required to properly maintain and op-
erate our facility and plant at Peterson and the Cheyenne Mountain
complex.
AIRMEN DORMITORIES
Mr. SIKES. You have 888 adequate airmen dormitory spaces here,
including 186 in the community. Would it be possible to increase the
reliance on community support to the extent necessary to eliminate
the projected deficit of 667 spaces ?
General REILLY. What about community support, Colonel Shook ?
Colonel SHOOK. We in fact probably will end up relying more upon
community support assets at Ent-Peterson.
You will note the particular project we requested this year is for
WAF personnel. This is a one-time project to move them out of the
Ent complex, sir, and we will have to reevaluate our community assets
prior to requesting future construction for bachelors at Peterson.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Could you provide for the record, as has been done
in past years, a summary of the bachelor quarters situation at each
base for which there is bachelor quarters requested or for which there
is requested an upgrading of bachelor personnel facilities ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
NCO OPEN MESS
Mr. SIKES. The NCO open mess is projected to cost $44.15 per square
foot. Colorado Springs has an area cost factor of 1.0. Does the bidding
experience for NCO open messes in the past indicate that you need
such a high unit cost ?
Colonel RUTLAND. Our 1974 NCO open messes range from $34.50
to $44.15 per square foot based upon the area cost factor and other
peculiarities at the site involved.
Looking at our record of the fiscal year 1971 MCP through 1973
MCP, our construction cost has been 98 percent of the programed
amount. So we feel very confident of this figure, sir.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLA.
Mr. SI ES. All right. Turn to Tyndall Air Force Base and insert
page 9 in the record.
[Page 9 follows:]
. DOAT. Ia. OPARlNTaT
AF
4. cOMMAND DRn mANASeNT .U .U
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
FY 19 74 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
I' .....o" L
. I AaIatALOAEI
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE
FLORIDA
T. sTarus . 10AR Op INITIAL OCCUPANCY *. CouNry (U.S.) *10 NRARESrT Ect
ACTIVE 1941 BAY 7 MILES SOUTHEAST OF PANAMA CITY, FIORIDA
It. aMIaION OR MAJOR PUNCTIOUN I PERMIANLENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
COMBAT CREW TRAINING SQUADRON PE[mROsEL STIRENOT oican IanLIrs.OI E aIVt.aN OPrliR I.LlaTE O nrPC[ IEI.NLTE cIy.e*uA TOTAL
"o (r ) (O (o (f) cr) r(q
AEROSPACE DEFENSE WEAPONS CENTER o AeD. o ceber 72 569 3.25 1,301 137 - I 199 - 5376
&uPLmaeondr 7 54 72 1,29 124 - 199 - 5653
AIRCRAFT ODNTROL AND WARNING RADAR s' INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST c(000) IMPROVEMENT (040) TOTAL (000o)
AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER frI c(a ( r
a o*ND 28,809 562 79,644 ,20b
A LEA.E, ANIO EAs uEIT 5,782 12) 0 0
. INVENTORY TOTAL (Sa.pi InrmS ) AS or ~o J uN I. 0,206
. AUTHORImEATION NOt YET IN iNV0nTORY 2,117
" AUTHORIZATION REusETEDo IN rTIa PROENA 951
I. ESaMATED AurnORIZATION NErT 4 TEARS
SUO ANDTOTAL f(a d.* o 0774
I. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NOR PROJECT TITLE P r v i COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
S( oo) r)5)
* & d * I d&
215-552 Weapons Release Systems Shop I SF 5,520 200 5,520 200
740-873 Theater 4 SF 10,900 751 10,900 751
TOTAL 951 951"
--
DDr,. 390
Pe p 9
- - -- - --- --- - - --- -- -. - -.---
126
TYNDALL AIR FOROE BASE
Tyndall Air Force Base, the second base to be considered in the Aerospace
Defense Command program, is located 7 miles southeast of Panama City, Fla.
Primary mission activities include Combat Crew Training, an Aerospace Defense
Weapons Center, Aircraft Control and Warning Radar, and the Air Force Civil
Engineering Center.
The requested program of $951,000 provides the following two items:
The first item is a weapons and release systems shop of 5,520 square feet.
This function presently occupies a building that cannot be economically adapted
to fully satisfy the requirements of an up-tocdate weapons release systems shop.
The following contribute to the unsuitability of the present facility: Necessary
equipment cannot be installed; doors are too small to admit items for main-
tenance; and inadequate ventilation.
The second project is a theater consisting of 10,900 square feet. An existing,
29-year old structure presently houses the theater function. Acoustical treatment,
sound track delivery, and seating are inadequate, detracting from the enjoy-
ment expected by patrons. Other deficiencies include insufficient parking, poor
environmental control, and a miniconcession area. To obtain similar entertain-
ment off base requires an approximately 30-mile round trip.
ADC--TYNDALL AFB, FLA.--DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent
complete
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Weapons release systems shop----------...................................------------------------------......... $9, 700 40
Theater-------------------------------------------------------------------...................... 28, 500 65
Mr. SIKEs. This is an extremely small program, General, for such
an important facility. Would you like to venture an explanation for
that which will satisfy me?
General REILLY. Well, sir, I guess it is maybe because the base is in
such good shape.
Mr. SIKES. I am not satisfied.
With what weapon system is the weapons release shop associated?
General REILLY. It has to do with the weapons training of the F-
106 and F-101 Air Defense aircraft.
Mr. SIKES. Will this complete the requirements ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it will.
Mr. SIxEs. What do you presently have for a base theater ?
General REILLY. They are using one of the old typical World War
II wooden theaters, much smaller than is required and very inade-
quate.
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Mr. SIKEs. Turn to the Air Force Communications Service; take up
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base.
Insert in the record page 13.
[Page 13 follows:]
I" DATE I" DEPARTMaT
FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
4. COUAND ON MAINAIASINT ULEAU . INSTALLATION CON TROL NUMNIn
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 'UEBL
INSTALLATION
RICHARDS-GEBAUR AIR FORCE BASE
1. STATUS . YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY I. COuNTV (U.S.) I0. NEASeT CITY
ACTIVE 1944 JACKSON 16 MILES SOUTH OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
It. MISION ON MAJOR FUNCTIONS 14N PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER CILIRTo CIVILIAN OFFICER ENLIST OFFICER INLISTI[ CIVILIAN TOTAL
TACTICAL AIRLIFT WING (RESERVE) t) t I r )s ( (7) (s r)
AlS o. 31c . 589 2.102 1.784 - - 38 52 0 ,5 5
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE HEADQUARTERS ,LAn.tsadr 76 615 2 357 1 78 - 38 52 0 1455
IS. INVENTORY
AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES CHECKING SQUADRON LAND ACRES LAND COST (SDo) IMPROVEMENT (0D) TOTAL (000)
) ft) (3) (4)
ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING GROUP o. OwNE 2 00 334 5I.4q 53,767
& LEASES AND EASaMENTv 630 122 0 122
S INVENTORY TOTAL (Ecpt Imd-n) AS or Ao JuNE S 9
d. AUTHIORIATION NOT YET I INVENTOY 3 80
. AUTHORIZATION RESUESTEo IN VlEnPRORAM 3, 3
SESTIMruATED AUTHoRIZATiON - NATE rE RS 5,000
du GRAND TOTAL (. + * ... 0 63.742
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE o PROJECT TITLE i COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE CO
S & 1 a I / A
217-742 Addition- to Communications and Electronics Shop 15 SF 6,680 205 6,680 205
510-001 Add to and Alter Composite Medical Facility 5 SF 64,000 3,758 64,000 3,758
TOTAL 3,963 3,963
D DtwJ390
P o,. 1__
8. STATE/COUNTRY
MISSOURI
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
The mission of the Air Force Communications Service (AFCS) is
to engineer, program for or provide, install, operate, maintain, and
manage communications electronics for the Air Force and for other
agencies as directed by the Chief of Staff, USAF.
This program request includes $3,963,000 in support of AFCS host
responsibilities plus $330,000 in worldwide communications for tech-
nical control facilities at various worldwide locations. Total construc-
tion requested in this program for AFCS is $4,293,000.
RICHARDS GEBAUR AIR FORCE BASE
Richards Gebaur AFB, Air Force Communications Service (AFCS)
Headquarters, is located 16 miles south of Kansas City, Mo. In addi-
tion to Communications Service Headquarters, Richards Gebaur sup-
ports a Reserve Tactical Airlift Wing, an Air Navigation Facilities
Checking Squadron (AFCS), and an Electronics Engineering Group
(AFCS). The military construction program requests $3,963,000 for
two projects as follow:
The first project is a 6,680 square foot addition to a communications
and electronics shop. Present housing is improperly configured to sup-
port, effective, efficient accomplishment of required tasks. Increased
workload, nearly tripled, results in unacceptable delay or deferment
of planned evaluation and testing.
The second project, Add to and Alter Composite Medical Facility,
has a scope of 64,000 square feet. Outpatient loads have increased more
than 100 percent since occupation of the present composite medical
facility. Medical needs of the military community exceed the capa-
bility of the existing building resulting in overcrowding and delays
in medical service.
AFCS-RICHARDS-GEBAUR AFB, MO.-DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent
complete
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Add to communications/electronics shop ..-........ -......... ..... ....... $11,000 100
Add to and alter composite medical facility..................----------. 233, 000 45
Mr. SIKEs. The request is for $3,963,000 for addition to the commu-
nications electronic shop, and addition and alteration of the medical
facility.
BASE OPERATING AND REAL PROPERTY COSTS
Provide for the record a breakout of the overhead costs for both
operations and maintenance -and military personnel of this base. Do
not include costs directly associated with the various missions sta-
tioned at this base.
Also show the real property operation and maintenance costs, in-
cluding family housing, and the estimated replacement cost of the
facilities here.
[The information follows:]
RICHARDS-GEBAUR BASE COSTS
Following are the base operating support costs for Richards-Gebaur AFB.
The costs shown are not direct mission support costs but are indirect support
for the prime missions.
Fiscal year
1978
Base operating support: (thousands)
Operating and maintenance---.....................-----------------------------... $7, 893
Military personnel--------------------- -------- 7, 270
Total base operating support excluding mission costs---------- 15, 163
Real property maintenance:
Operation and maintenance (including family housing) ------------ 5, 295
Military personnel---------------------------------------- 1, 552
Total -------------------------------------------------- 6, 847
The estimated replacement cost of facilities is $104.3 million.
Mr. SIKES. IS this one of the firm Air Force bases ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Could you have consolidated these functions elsewhere to
effect savings in overhead and maintenance ?
General REILLY. No, sir, I do not think we could have.
Mr. SIRES. Why not ?
General REILLY. Sir, the communications and electronics activity re-
lates directly to the mission of Air Force Communications Service,
which is headquartered in Richards-Gebaur.
This work in support of the Defense Communications Agency, is
best accomplished there where they have the necessary expertise.
COMPOSITE MEDICAL FACILITY
Mr. SIRES. What is the type of hospital that you now have ?
Colonel BAIRD. We have a Korean vintage hospital, sir, which was
adequate when built for the population at that time, but we need a
hospital of about 99,000 to 100,000 square feet to support the popula-
tion that is at Richards-Gebaur at this time.
The project basically is to provide medical care to the population at
Richards-Gebaur and it is the prime center of hospitalization for the
Navy personnel stationed at the Marine Corps Finance Center in Kan-
sas City.
COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS SHOP
Mr. SIRES. Provide for the record the workload, past and projected,
for the communications and electronics shop here, and tell us what
type of work is performed here.
[The information follows:]
130
WORKLOAD FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS SHOP AT RICHARDS-GEBAUR
1. WORKLOAD
Major projects worked on
Fiscal year :
Millions
1971 (22 projects) ------------------------------------------ $2. 4
1972 (21 projects) ---------------------------------------- 2. 2
1973 (22 projects) ----------- ----------------------------- 2.7
1974 (20 projects) ------------------------------------------- 3. O0
1975 (22 projects) ------------------------------------------- 3.2
1976 (25 projects)------------------------------------------- 3.4
1977 (25 projects) ------------------------------------------- 3.6
1978 (25 projects) ------------------------------------------- 3. 6
2. TYPE OF WORK PERFORMED
(a) Operational testing of digital communications techniques is being con-
ducted to provide experience and data on new types of radio, multiplex, and
cryptographic equipment. This data will be used by the people who will operate
and maintain the new equipment when it is placed in the field. The primary
purpose is to assure that proper communications equipment is made available
to Air Force units.
(b) A cable plant test faciilty is installed in the building. In an adjacent field,
several thousand feet of different types of telephone cables are buried or installed.
Various types of signals are routed through these cables to develop improved
test procedures for base cable plant people to use in their quality control work.
Similarly, strange phenomena experienced in the field can be simulated here to
try to find standard methods to fix any trouble areas.
(O) Prototype installations of air traffic control radios and meteorological
equipment are to be used for development of maintenance quality control pro-
cedures to enhance service in the field.
(d) Various commercial equipments are tested in this facility as part of the
Defense Communications System standardization programs. This includes data
communications equipment, signal translators and multiplexers, and automated
test equipment. To support this testing, a prototype technical control is used to
simulate field use of the equipment under test.
HOSPITAL WORKLOAD
Mr. SIKEs. You are requesting an addition to and alteration of the
composite medical facility. Provide past and projected workload data
for this hospital for the record.
[The information follows:]
131
PAST AND PROJECTED WORKLOAD FOR MEDICAL FACILITY AT RICHARDS-GEBAUR AFB
Dependents of Dependents of
Active duty active duty retired
Calendar year Total military military Retired deceased
Outpatient visits per year:1
1968---------------------------............................ 86,064 16, 876 54, 546 4, 686 9, 956
1969--------------------------- 85,759 14,659 56, 703 5,447 8,950
1970--------------------------.......................... 78,039 13,645 48,067 5,716 10,611
1971.....--------------------------- 90,365 15, 898 57,218 5, 262 11,987
1972----------... ----------------- 86, 716 16,836 50, 633 5, 133 14,114
1973--------------------------- 85,000 16,800 46,625 5,650 15,925
1974-----...... ---------------------- 85, 000 16,875 46,600 5,750 15,775
1975....--------------------------- 85, 000 16,775 46, 500 5,850 15, 875
1976.......--------------------------- 92,000 17,000 52,450 6,300 16,250
1977--------------------------- 93,500 17,200 53,200 6,600 16,500
Average daily beds occupied:s
1968___ ---------------------------- 26.8 6.7 12.8 2.6 4.7
1969---------------------------- 24.7 7.4 11.0 2.0 4.3
1970-----------------------------............................ 20. 4 6.7 8.3 1.6 3.8
1971----------------------------- 19.4 5.6 9.3 1.7 2.8
1972----------------------------- 17.9 5.5 6.2 2.5 3.7
1973----------------------------- 16.0 5.5 5.4 2.7 2.4
1974---------------------------- 16.0 5.5 5.5 2.7 2.3
1975--..........-----.......... .... ---------------------- 16. 0 5.5 5.5 2.7 2.3
1976----------------------------- 16.0 5.5 5.5 2.7 2.3
1977............................. 16. 0 5.5 5.5 2.7 2.3
I The programed workload for facilities planning is 81,029 outpatient visits per year, end position 1977. Retired workload
is limited to 5 percent of programed workload.
The programed workload for facilities planning is 17 average daily beds occupied, end position 1977. Retired workload
is limited to 5 percent of programed workload.
Mr. SIXEs. It would appear, that except for retired personnel, the
outpatient workload is not substantially increasing.
Why is there requirement for additional space for outpatients ?
Colonel BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, we have found that the outpatient
workload does demand greater square footage. In particular, we have
to enlarge the inadequately sized laboratory pharmacy and X-ray
departments at Richards-Gebaur.
For example, the pediatric clinic consists of one room, four pedia-
tricians examine four children, separated only by curtains. We hope
to correct many health care delivery problems in this hospital.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Well, if this is the situation now, has it been the
same since 1968, when you had approximately the same workload at
this base?
Colonel BAIRD. That is correct.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you anticipate its getting worse or better?
Colonel BAIRD. We anticipate it is going to be approximately what
it is now. which is professionally an inadequate situation.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you anticipate that the closure of Forbes Air-
base will increase or decrease your workload here?
IMPACT OF FORBES AFB CLOSURE ON RICHARDS-GEBAUR MEDICAL FACILITY
General REILLY. We do not anticipate any change in the workload
at USAF Hospital, Richards-Gebaur, as the result of the closure of
Forbes Air Force Base.
HOSPITALS IN CIVILIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. NICHOLAS. What hospitals are there in the civilian community
which offer full medical care ?
Provide details for the record.
[The information follows:]
HOSPITALS WITHIN 50-MILE RADIUS OF RICHARDS-GEBAUR AFB
Atchison Hospital, Atchison, Kans.
A.T. & S.F. Memorial Hospital, Topeka, Kans.
Baptist Memorial Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
Bethany Medical Center, Kansas City, Kans.
Cameron Community Hospital, Cameron, Mo.
Cass County Memorial Hospital, Harrisonville, Mo.
Center for Health Sciences, Kansas City College of Osteopathic Medicine, Kansas
City, Mo.
Cushing Memorial Hospital, Leavenworth, Kans.
Downtown Hospital Foundation, Kansas City, Mo.
Douglas Hospital. Kansas City. Kans.
Excelsior Springs Hospital, Excelsior Springs, Mo.
Gardner Community Medical Center, Gardner, Kans.
General Osteopathic Hospital of St. Joesph, St. Joseph, Mo.
Independence Sanitarium and Hospital, Independence, Mo.
Jackson County Public Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
Johnson County Memorial Hospital. Warrensburg. Mo.
Kansas City General Hospital and Medical Center, Kansas City, Mo.
Lakeside Hospital, Kansas City. Mn
Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
McCleary Memorial Hospital, Excelsior Springs, Mo.
Medical Center of Independence, Independence, Mo.
Menorah Medical Center, Kansas City, Mo.
Methodist Hospital and Medical Center, St. Joseph, Mo.
Northeast Osteopathic Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
Olathe Community Hospital, Olathe, Kans.
Providence-St. Margaret Hoalth Center. Kansas City, Kans.
Research Hospital and Medical Center, Kansas City, Mo.
Shawnee Mission Hosnital. Shawnee Mission, Kans.
St. Francis Hospital, Topeka, Kans.
St. John Hospital, Leavenworth, Kans.
St. Joseph Hospital, St. Joseph, Mo.
St. Joseph Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo.
St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
St. Mary's Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
Stormont-Vail Hospital, Topeka, Kans.
Trinity Lutheran Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kans.
Vineyard Park Doctor's Hospital, Kansas City, Mo.
Am FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
Mr. SIxs. Take up the Air Force Logistics Command; insert page
16 in the record.
[Page 16 follows:]
133
Am FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
The mission of the Air Force Logistics Command is to provide an adequate and
efficient system of procurement, production, surveillance, maintenance, and
supply for the U.S. Air Force and train specialized units for accomplishment of
logistics functions in overseas areas and theaters. This program contains a request
for $60,934,000 which provides facilities at six locations where Air Force Logis-
tics Command is the host command, of this amount $39,800,000 is for items to
support the Air Force Logistics Command and $21,134,000 to support the Air
Force Systems Command at Hill AFB, Utah and Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio.
Air Force Logistios Command
Proposed
Instal.ation program
Hill Air Force Base, Utah-----------------........--------------- $11, 968, 000
Kelly Air Force Base, Tex--------------------------------- 6, 101, 000
McClellan Air Force Base, Calif------------------------------ 3, 171, 000
Robins Air Force Base, Ga-------------------- ------------- 4, 868, 000
Tinker Air Force Base, Okla---------------.......----------------- 15, 275, 000
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio--------.. ------------- 19, 551, 000
Total -------- ------------------------------ 60, 934, 000
DEPOT PLANT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. SIKES. You are requesting $31.4 million for construction in
connection with the depot modernization program in fiscal year 1974,
is that correct?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT
Mr. SIKES. What is the cost of the equipment which will be procured
for these projects?
General REILLY. $26.9 million.
Mr. SIxEs. I would like to have some details for the record, showing
the total amount of equipment procurement for the DPMP, which is
contained in the Air Force's fiscal 1974 budget.
[The information follows:]
The details of the fiscal year 1974 DPMP equipment program are tabulated
below :
Millions
Maintenance and repair shop equipment---------..........------------------ $13.. 0
Mechanized materials handling system--------------------------- 11. 0
Common aerospace ground equipment------------------------------ 2. 9
Total-------------------------------------------------------- 26.9
SAVINGS
Mr. SIKEs. Last year the committee's investigations staff had serious
reservations about the services' economic analyses. Has the Air Force
computed the cost benefits for these projects in what you consider a
fully proper manner ?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, as we said a little earlier, we have incorporated some
changes into our economic analysis as a consequence of the investiga-
tions staff's recommendations. We have complete confidence in the
savings that we are now claiming, in addition to the savings that we
are unable to quantify that we are no longer claiming.
Mr. SIKES. All right. What are the total discounted savings which
you anticipate from the fiscal year 1974 projects over their economic
life?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, the one-time savings are $27 mil-
lion, annual savings of $6 million, and the total over the economic
life are roughly $80 million. That is for the 16 projects at the 5 lo-
cations.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Those are the discounted savings?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir, they are.
Mr. NICHOLAS. So they would compare to the sum of $31 million
plus $26.9 million plus whatever other investment costs there may be?
Colonel MoRRow. Sir, the $80 million applies only to the $31.4 mil-
lion military construction investment.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. PATTEN. Has the Air Force recomputed the deficit in its total
depot plant modernization program, and also the savings which it ex-
pects to realize?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir, we have. We have recomputed on an
annual basis both the savings that we expect, as well as our
requirements.
Our savings, as we indicated a moment ago, total out to $1.2 billion
and our requirements have been scrubbed down to the very essential
minimum, as indicated in the 1974 program.
TECHNOLOGY REPAIR CENTERS
Mr. PATTEN. The Air Force has adopted a new concept of tech-
nology repair centers at its air materiel areas.
Would you discuss the reasons why the Air Force developed this
program?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir.
Our technology repair center concept is essentially the realine-
ment of maintenance workloads in a homogeneous fashion. We con-
solidate those workloads which have similarity or commonality of
skills, equipment, and facilities. We do this in what we call the ex-
changeable areas, which represent about 15 million hours of our an-
nual workload.
We are distributing these into hard-core technology repair centers
in our five air materiel areas.
Mr. PATTEN. What will be the one-time cost of establishing these
TRC's?
Colonel MORROW. Approximately $26 million.
Mr. PATTEN. The TRC program as currently devised would utilize
all five AMA's. It would also allocate more workload to those which
are underutilized, is this correct?
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir.
COMPUTERIZED WORKLOAD AND FACILITIES SYSTEM
Mr. PATTEN. The Air Force has developed a computer system to
allocate its workload and derive facilities deficits for various alterna-
tive workload assignments.
Could you describe how this system works?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
In our automated system for depot maintenance workload program-
ing, all factors of requirements for maintenance are introduced into
the computerized system, as well as all other factors concerned with
facilities, equipment availability, cost factors, all are introduced into
computerized systems.
We exercise this system to determine the least costly alternative
prior to assigning workloads as well as prior to requesting military
construction projects.
Mr. PATTrrEN. I hope your computer is better than the one we got for
the House. It just stopped with a second to go. It stayed there at .01.
The Chair asked, is there anybody else who wants to vote, after a
good 10 or 15 seconds had gone by, and the vote was 152 for the amend-
ment and 162 against. When the computer hit the final, it was 164 for,
162 against.
Now I was watching who came on the floor and I think, knowing the
total number voting previously, that the computer in that last jump
broke a record. I do not think the vote was 164-162, I think the yeas got
at least 10 less.
Honestly, no one could have voted. I was watching. It was ahead by
10. So that computers are computers, right ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
We find we have to scrub down quite a bit, do a lot of manual work
in first introducing a new program.
Mr. PATTEN. Has this system been fully developed and tested ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir, it has. We have been on line, as we men-
tioned to the committee last year, and our first products were turned
out in April of 1972. We used this system in the analysis that led to
our Technology Repair Center concept and we used this system in
developing this year's military construction program for our modern-
ization program.
Mr. PATTEN. Then you did use it in deriving your military construc-
tion requirements for this year ?
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir, we did and we do.
STUDIES OF WORKLOADS AND FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Mr. PATTEN. Did the study on the establishment of TRC's utilize
this computer program to perform its analysis of alternate workload
assignments ?
Colonel MORROw. Yes, sir, it did.
Mr. PATTEN. Why was not this program used more extensively by
the study group ?
Mr. NICHOLAS. The investigative report indicates that the Air Force
mechanized depot maintenance program system was not used by the
ad hoc study group which did the TRC study. Instead, data were
requested from the command by this group and were prepared manu-
ally, which would seem to be quite a step down from using the computer
capacity you have.
'Colonel MonRRow. It would have been, Mr. Nicholas.
Actually. we did use the first products and the early portions of the
studies and later products of the computerized program in June and
July of last year. So I believe there is a misconception there. The com-
puterized program, the products of it, were used and a copy of that
was furnished to the investigation staff.
Mr. NICHOLAS. The advantage of the computerized program is that
you can use various alternatives rather than coming out with one
workload projection ?
Colonel Monxow. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. NTmTrorAs. Was this used in studying the various allocations
of the TRC's between AMA's? Was it used in determining whether
the TRC's and the AMA workload would operate more efficiently at
four or five depots ?
Was it used in all of these considerations into which the TRC study
presumably looked ?
Colonel MoRRow. It was used in all considerations for the TRC
study. There was a follow-on study called the Posture 1976 study. That
study was to determine whether there are any other feasible alterna-
tives which have not been put into our computer. One of the questions
addressed there was the economics associated with five versus four
AMA's.
Mr. NICHOLAS. So in the original TRC study which did, you say,
utilize some of this computer output, you did not specifically look
into the question of alternatives of whether you needed four AMA's
or five AMA's or this type of thing ?
Colonel MORRow. No, sir. The basis for the original TRC was one of
mission essentiality.
We took a rather detailed look at our requirements to respond to a
military contingency, a peace to war transition. Based on that, we
were required to have the five depot structure. So we based the TRC
concept on five depots, then developed the workload alinement using
a computerized system.
After this was completed in October of last year, the Commander of
the Logistics Command directed that an additional study be con-
ducted on the basis of economics. It was to this that the Posture 76
study group addressed itself. Purely on the basis of economics, the
group developed Posture 76 study on a manual basis using com-
puterized products.
Mr. NICHOLAs. How did they use them ?
Colonel MORROw. They took the printouts, we were able to sum-
marize in different ways, so to speak. We did introduce the factors,
all factors I mentioned a moment ago of workload requirements, the
factors of facility utilization, the factors of costs, and used these print-
outs and summarized analyses produced in our computerized system-
we call it our .15 system in response to a DODI 4151.15-and the study
group used these products.
Now the actual cost comparisons were done in a manual mode. They
were done on a crash basis between September and December of
last year. During that time these comparisons were made by rather
a large task group.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Could you provide, if the information is available,
for the record-you say you did use computer printouts to examine
the way your workloads would be allocated between the various
AMA's and you presumably fed the results of the TRC concept study
into this-but could you provide the specific printouts that you got,
what alternatives were considered in each of these printouts?
Presumably you had 5, 10, 12 printouts on workloads which would
be feasible under five AMA's or four AMA's in your base structure.
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir.
I would like to add, these were provided to the investigations staff.
Evidently there was another question still before them. I believe they
are addressing the task group posture 76 which made a manual com-
parison based on economics using computerized printouts.
Here they took the factors that the computer program produced,
they matched these up manually, and exercised program alternatives.
Mr. NICHolAs. When you say they took the factors, did you have a
complete computer run based on one of these alternatives and come
up with the suggested workload, the required military construction
required, and the amount of capacity at each of the AMA's that this
would represent as a result of this particular workload allocation,
and the dollars and workload assigned to each ?
Did you use fully the results of your computer technique to that
degree? Or did you just take some factors-everybody has cost factors
that they use in planning--
Colonel MoRRow. We used the products by which we developed the
TRC and then manually compared them so the answer to your first
question is no. Posture 76 did not reintroduce new computations and
inputs into a computer program and produce additional alternative
results. That portion of the study was manual.
The Posture 76 study, which was an economic comparison of five
versus four AMA's, used the TRC workload distribution that had
been optimized with the computer program; so the answer to your
question, sir, is posture 76 did not use the computer program to exer-
cise alternatives. It only used the computer output as an input into
the manual study.
Mr. NICHOiA. Was there not sufficient time to do this, or it was not
felt it was worthwhile to do it ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir; we did study the alternatives. There was
sufficient time. It was a rather crash program between September and
December, a rather large task group was put on it.
We do believe that the results were beneficial. We revalidated, re-
affirmed and confirmed in our own minds that the need for the five
depots was there. On the basis of economics the manual analysis
showed that if we were going to go to four AMA's on purely a cost
basis, the amortization crossover would occur about the 10th or 11th
year, whereas, going to the TRC, with the five depots, that we are
presently projecting, we would amortize all of our costs within the
second year.
Mr. PATrEN. In other words, I take it the Air Force had already
made up its mind as to the necessity to retain five AMA's before the
TRC study completed its work ?
Colonel MORRow. Within the TRC, based on military contingency
requirements, yes, sir; it was necessary. So on that basis we developed
the Technology Repair Center concept, distributing the workloads,
as you see, in the TRC. After that the posture 76 addressed the alter-
native on an economic basis of closing down a depot, to see which
course was economically the best. In the interest of economy, partic-
ularly a short-term economy, say within 10 years, it was more advan-
tageous to maintain five depots.
Mr. NICHOLAS. How can you be sure ?
Could we have that manual study for the record ?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir; we will provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
TRO STUDY
The study requested is contained in three books of over 860 pages, parts of
which are classified. Only a limited number of copies were printed. A full copy
will be made available to the committee staff.
Mr. NICHoLAs. How can you be sure that you would not operate
more efficiently with four AMA's and thus conserve scarce resources
which could be applied to your force levels ?
Colonel MoRRow. On the basis of military responsiveness, the reason
for the need for five geographic areas is because we count on several
things to give us the ability to respond on a short-term basis.
Any of the war contingencies under the war mobilization plan re-
quire a surge very rapidly over a short period of time, 2 to 3 months, the
fourth month being the peak workload. In order to respond to that,
we have to use additional overtime of the personnel that we have on
board, go to the geographical labor market and hire off the street as
well as transfer people from those workloads which are not surging to
those workloads which are.
Now primarily in the area of geographical labor markets, and here
we find our greatest shortcoming, we have to tap the resources of all
five depots in order to get enough out of that labor market to respond
and meet a contingency.
ASSIGNMENT OF WORKLOADS TO TECHNOLOGICAL REPAIR CENTERS
Mr. PATTEN. What is the status of the assignment of actual work-
loads according to the TRC concept ?
Colonel MORROw. The workloads have been defined in the kinds, the
amounts and where they are going to go. The plan is existing in the
field at the present time. It has been distributed to all the air ma-
teriel areas.
We are presently developing our program plans to effect the physi-
cal movement of the maintenance workload as well as the equipment
associated with it. These plans will be completed by the end of July.
Mr. NICHOLAs. The investigative staff's report, which will be put
in the record, I gather, at a later point, indicates that the definition of
what is actually in each of these Technical Repair Centers--as op-
posed to just general guidelines of "This will be aircraft landing gear
overhaul" and "This will be airborne radar electronics," the def-
inition according to Federal stock numbers, the guts, the details of
what the actual items are which will be included in each TRC, and
the workload which will be associated with each of these, has not
really been worked out yet.
Is that the case ?
Colonel MORROW. No, sir.
To answer that question, that has been worked out. It was occurring
during the time the investigative staff were on board. Details were
distributed last month. That was the definition by Federal stock
number of each of the bits and pieces of repair, system items that
would go back to the AMA's for depot level maintenance. These have
been distributed and they are now being used by the separate AMA's
in development of their program plans.
Possibly what the investigative staff was alluding to was the full
definitization by serial number, by Federal stock number, of all the
parts that would be flowing into the depots.
The need for this is so that the commands that are generating the
repair, the operating commands, would know where to send the equip-
ment for repair. This has yet to be done. But that has nothing to do
with where we are going to move the maintenance workloads.
Mr. NICHOLAS. It has been decided which Federal stock number
items will be repaired at which depots under which TRC's?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
Mr. NICHOLAS. But you have not put this information out to the
users?
Colonel MORROw. To the operating command, no, sir. That will
occur later. We start the actual moves in January of next year. We
are some 6 months away from it. We are now completing the pro-
gram planning in order to do that.
Now the essential element of the program planning is to insure
that we will not suffer any lack of responsiveness to the operating
forces during the times of the moves. That is what we are planning
right now. Of course, we will not allow any degradation. We will take
care of any loss of productivity with increased overtime and we have
included this as a cost of our TRC.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you know specifically what workload is associ-
ated with each of these areas ?
The way I understand the Air Force accounting system at depots,
you really cannot trace man-hours back to the end items which you
repair. You do it on a shop basis or some similar type of thing. You
have engineering factors. But as far as being able to tell how much is
actually spent at an Air Force AMA, for the repair of a particular
type of landing gear, I think you cannot really say what the man-
hours have been.
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir, we can; but you are partially correct in
that our accounting system at the depots does not use that method to
account for work accomplished.
We have two accounting systems, one in the automated workload
programing system. In compliance with the DODI 4151.15, all of
the services are now on line relating the component parts for repair
back to the weapon system itself.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You have this information in your data bank?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir; we do. This is a new development. We
just got this out. It was used, as I mentioned, last year during our
posture study and it is the basis for our TRC.
Mr. PAITEN. This is kind of repetitious, but what is the status of
the assignment of the actual workload according to the TRC concept?
Colonel MORRow. Sir, the decisions have been made to move the
workload; they will start in January of this coming year, they will
be phased over a 2-year period of time.
We are now finishing up all the additional program plans for each
of the discrete moves associated with the particular group of repara-
bles. There are some 48 of those individual plans being developed.
Mr. PATTEN. And when do you expect the components which make
up the various TRC's to be firmly established ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, they are, now. As of midpoint last month,
they were completely established.
PERSONNEL TRANSFERS BETWEEN AIR MATERIEL AREAS
Mr. PATTEN. Have the numbers of personnel to be transferred be-
tween air materiel areas as a result of establishing TRC's been fixed?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir, they have.
Mr. PATTEN. How were these tentative numbers arrived at?
Colonel MORRow. Two factors impacted on the increase or de-
crease of personnel.
Workload moves themselves, in which personnel would be offered
functional transfers. In addition to that, we expect some 1,100 per-
sonnel savings throughout the logistics command as a consequence
of reducing overhead.
As we move into our TRC concept, we will reduce the number of
divisions that we have, 26 down to 22. In the process of doing this we
will reduce the overhead and indirect labor associated with those prod-
uct divisions, which will effect 1,100 personnel savings. So the total
personnel to be lost and gained at each of the different depots is based
on those two things: those people who will be offered functional trans-
fer moves as their workload moves, plus the people, the manpower
spaces, given up as a consequence of the savings we anticipate.
Mr. PATTEN. What further steps will be required before details of
functions and personnel to be transferred between AMA's can be
worked out?
Colonel MORROW. There are a number of details, sir, associated with
civilian personnel moves. Those are in the process of being worked
out now. They will not affect in any measure what goes where and in
what quantities, but they will affect the people themselves. So these
details are presently being worked out, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. When will this be complete ?
Colonel MORROW. The plans, themselves will be completed end of
July. The draft of the plans will be completed in July of this year,
and are scheduled to be approved within 1 month.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO ESTABLISHMENT OF TECH-
NOLOGICAL REPAIR CENTERS
Mr. PATTEN. Have you revalidated all of the depot projects re-
quested in fiscal year 1974 to insure that the TRC concept will not
reduce or eliminate the requirement for them?
141
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir, we have.
Mr. PATTEN. What projects were deleted or reduced in your fiscal
year 1974 and out-year programs ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, we had a total of 16 projects reduced or elim-
inated in our total program. Three of those are in fiscal 1974. The
balance were in the following years, 1975 and 1976, totaling about $18
million in construction projects which is avoided as a consequence of
our moving into the TRC concept.
We can provide the particulars for the record of those 16 projects.
[The information follows:]
TRC PROJECTS DELETED OR REDUCED
TRC AFFECTED PROJECTS
Fiscal year Project Action Saving
OCAMA(TinkerAFB):
1975----------___ Add to/Alter Eng Test and Storage..................... Reduce ............ $318, 000
1975 ............ Add to/Alter Avionics Shop...-----..................... Delete.---- 906,000
1976----------............. Turbine Shop.... ---------------------------------- do. ------------- 410,000
1976....-. ... Industrial Labs Facility ....... ---------------------- Reduce............. 2,000,000
OOAMA (Hill AFB):
1974-............ Instrument Shop.................................... -----------------------------Delete 776, 000
1975.--.----__ Maint Hangar -......................................Reduce ----- 622,000
1976- .---... Material Control Lab.................. --------------------------Delete... -------------248, 000
1976- ........... Production Support................... ....----- do............. 505,000
SAAMA (Kelly AFB):
1975--------- ......... A/C Gen Purp Shop--- ---------------------------...do------------- 1, 864, 000
1974__---- -_ Aerospace Ground Equipment Shop. ..---------- .-----------o.. 208, 000
1976----------A/C Maint rg Shop...----------------------------- do----------- ............ 1, 496, 000
SMAMA (McClellan
AFB):
1974 - ........... A/C Weapons Calib Shelter ..............................-do---- 2, 592, 000
1974------ - Arm and Avionics Shop ...................................do........... 1, 224,000
1975.__-------. Ground Equipment Veh Parking ....---------------- do------------- 268, 000
1975- - -- Alter Org A/C Maint Shop ------------------------------ do------------ 434,000
1976.......-... Consolidated Depot A/C Maint----......................... do -.......... 4,136,000
WRAMA (Robins
AFB): No projects
affected - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total
reductions .....................-..... .................... 16 projects......... 18, 007,000
BREAKDOWN OF AIR MATERIAL AREA WORKLOADS
Mr. PATTEN. Provide for the record the man-year workload expe-
rienced at each AMA for the past 5 years, broken down by major areas
of work such as aircraft, TRC's, engines, et cetera.
[The information follows:]
142
AMA WORKLOADS
[Man-hours]
Fiscal year-
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Summary:
Aircraft-............ ---------- 15,257,967 15, 607, 886 18,109, 950 18, 057, 501 13, 862, 000
Missiles..-..... ....-........ 197, 875 227, 627 254,034 305, 362 331,027
Engines.-----------------. 7,910, 763 8,481, 532 6,925,055 7,882,918 7,486,842
Other major end items ..... ----- 1, 795, 571 1,781,299 2, 225, 703 735, 322 1, 041,922
Exchangeables.---.-- - - 20, 113, 325 20,154,106 18,125, 914 20,180, 700 20, 842,161
Area-base-manufacture -----............-------6, 333, 982 6,029,921 5, 071,673 4, 346,427 4, 552,309
Total.......................... 51,609, 483 52, 282, 371 50, 712, 329 51, 508, 230 48, 116, 264
OCAMA:
Aircraft .....----------------------2,582, 898 2,971,258 4,278,573 3, 704,853 2,544,571
Engines.......................... 5,330, 849 5,712,188 4,695,010 4,925, 764 4,639,787
Exchangeables....------- - 4, 236, 887 3, 956, 080 3, 492, 006 3, 657, 586 4,169, 649
Area-base-manufacture-----.......-----. 1,004,133 977, 735 761,559 594, 284 509, 3,7
Total.......................... 13,424,767 13,617, 261 13,227,148 12, 882, 487 11,863, 324
OOAMA:
Aircraft.........................--------------------. 3,689, 876 3,645, 279 4, 326,147 4,154,468 2,909,514
Missiles...------------------- - 193, 829 227,118 240, 690 302, 543 331,027
Other major end items......------------.. 68, 726 67, 219 49,091 42,754 63 614
Exchangeables------------- - 3, 307, 406 3, 392,130 3, 185,129 3, 354, 718 4,113,292
Area-basemanufacture---............ 1,096, 728 1,047,181 770, 917 967,936 1,053,255
Total................ .......... 8, 356, 565 8, 378, 927 8, 571, 974 8, 822, 419 8, 470, 702
SAAMA:
Aircraft-...................... 2, 651,115 2,574,634 3,190, 354 3, 297,650 2,836,059
Engines.--...... ---------- - 2, 555, 866 2,769,472 2,235, 072 2,959,458 2,847,055
Exchangeables..-....-.... ..._.. 5, 625, 630 5, 360, 746 5, 050, 926 4, 602, 937 4, 027, 319
Area base manufacture............ 1,313, 966 1,333,141 1,055,158 885, 262 892, 794
Total.--------..-.-...-... --- - 12, 146,577 12, 037, 993 11,531, 510 11,745, 307 10, 603, 227
SMAMA:
Aircraft--.-. ---... --.-- - 3, 954,786 4,171,114 4,293,244 3,667,243 3,035,122
Other major end items........................................ 421,714 692,568 978,308
Exchangeables.................... 3,072,181 3, 379, 010 2,477,489 2,614,899 2,511, 018
Area-base-manufacture----....--------....... 1,707,257 1,602, 077 1, 446, 815 1, 290, 849 1, 263,105
Total....---------... ------... 8,734,224 9,152,201 8,639, 262 8,265, 559 7,787,553
AGMC:
Other major end items...------------ 1, 724, 507 1,714, 080 1,754,898 ..........................
Exchangeables................------------------------------------------ 7,552 1,821,893 1,737,888
Area-base-manufacture------------. 28,611 23,197 20,481 27,679 37,356
Total ..-.-...- .-.-.-..--- --_ 1, 753,118 1,737, 277 1,782, 931 1, 849, 572 1,775, 244
WRAMA:
Aircraft------.-.-..-... .. 2,109, 292 2,245, 601 2,021,632 3,233,287 2, 536,737
Exchangeables-......-...- 3, 875, 622 4,066,521 3, 921,129 4, 129,182 4, 282, 995
Area-base-manufacture............ 1, 209, 318 1, 046, 590 1,016, 743 580, 417 796,482
Total.......................... 7,194, 232 7, 358, 712 6, 959, 504 7, 942, 886 7,616, 214
143
Mr. PATTEN. In past years you have provided various workload
projections to the committee. For fiscal year 1972 through 1974, com-
pare your projections to current estimates.
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir.
We will provide the details for the record. However, summarily,
we anticipate that the workload will decrease somewhat from what
we provided the committee last year. We now have a total depot main-
tenance workload of approximately 85 million product actual hours
and anticipate that this will decrease to about 76 million by fiscal
1977. This is a slight drop from what we projected last year.
[The information follows:]
AMA WORKLOAD COMPARISONS
[Workload projects versus current estimates]
Appropriation Appropriation
1971 1972 Current
projection projection Actual estimate
Fiscal year:
1972..............--------------------------------------50,475 51,500 51,508 )
1973-------------------------------------- 50,035 47,567 132,241 47,
1974 --------------------------------------50,035 47,567 (a) 48,930
I Through February 28, 1973.
2 Not available.
HILL Am FORCE BASE, UTAH
Mr. PArrEN. Turn to Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and insert page 17
in the record.
[Page 17 follows:]
20-632 0 - 73 - 10
I. DATE S. DEPART N Td
FT 19_4MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
AT
I. IN*TALLAT. I
HiTT, A']R -FORM. BASE
,A N w_ A LL TO CONTROL NUM{ER . .1
TI'VAH
7. STATUS I. vrn oF INITIAl. OCCUPANCY . COUNTY (U.S.) I. NEAREST CIT
ATIVE 1940 DAVIS SEVEN MILES SOUTH OF OGDEN, UTAH
II. MISSION OR MJOR NCTIONS Ii. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
HELICOPTER AIRCREW TRAINING WING (MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFriCER LISTED CIVILIAN OPICE[R [NLIStT[ OFFICE ENLITEcI CIVILIAN TOTAL
AIRLIT COMMAND) .Ao*31DecembeT _ 690 2,677 16,002 57 108 60 53 - 1964
TACTICAL FIG~TER GROUP (RESERVE) a N,., m r 6> 691 2,627 15,2691 57 108 60 5 18 86
OGDEN AIR MATERIEL AREA DEPOT LAND ACRES LAND COST (000) IMPROVEMENT (000D) TOTAL (O0)
ft) () () (4
So,,Ns. 7,761 512 151,030 151,542
a. ,.A*. AND ASMNTs 0 4 O 407
C. INVENTOrY TorTL (EXt"p. .d rmn s or 0 JUNE 1 ..... 151.949
d. AUTHORIZATIon NOT vE*r IN IvoroRvExcludes Family Housing $746 000 6,148
SAUTHORIZA1TION REQUESTED IN HIS PROGRAM 11
L ISTIAToED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEARN 30,000
4- GRAND TOTAL (c + d+ + 200065
Io. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
C. ORY PROJECT TITLE P Y O Yi 7 COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE coT
CODE NO.A Ioo (OO)
A b d I h h
Addition to Terminal Access Apron 8
Depot Aircraft Landing Gear Overhaul Facility I
Ballistic Missile Processing Support Facility i
Advanced Logistics System Utility Support I
Addition to Depot Central Heating Plant 3
TOTAL
AFSC
33,050
280,213
87,600
LS
LS
717
6,858
3,000
625
768
11,968
33,050
280,213
87,600
LS
LS
717
6,858
3,000
625
768
11,968
- - - S - - S
I II Io
113-321
211-254
400-000
811-14A
821-116
DD, J,1390
I_ MM
1- COn OR MAN 1emW T Su C U
r
145
HILL An FORCE BASE
The first location, Hill Air Force Base, is 7 miles south of Ogden, Utah and
is headquarters for the Ogden Air Materiel area. In addition the base supports
a helicopter combat crew training unit for Military Airlift Command, a reserve
tactical fighter group mission, and an Air Force Systems Command test squad-
ron. The total program being requested is $11,968,000 consisting of five items in-
cluding one item of $3,000,000 for Air Force Systems Command as follows:
The first project provides for the construction of an addition to the existing
aircraft operational apron serving the air freight terminal. The existing apron
does not provide sufficient space to accommodate the large, modern cargo aircraft.
The second project provides for the construction of a 280,213-square-foot depot
landing gear overhaul facility. Presently, overhaul is being accomplished in
scattered and temporary facilities.
The third project will construct Minuteman ballistic missile processing support
facilities totaling 87,600 square feet for Air Force Systems Command. Existing
facilities are saturated and storage of additional units cannot be accomplished
without new facilities.
The fourth project will provide alternate electric power supply, air condition-
ing, and associated utilities to support operation of advanced logistics system
computer equipment.
The last project provides an addition to an existing depot central heating
plant. Due to limited supply of natural gas, primary heat loads must be assumed
by a large central plant which can use oil as a substitute fuel, and which can be
altered to increase steam generating capacity.
AFLC-HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH-DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent
complete
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Addition to terminal access apron----------...........-------------------- $34, 300 85
Depot aircraft landing gear overhaul facility..-.__. - --.. - --.- - --.- .-320,000 50
Ballistic missile processing support facilities --....-----.--.-----.-...-.....- -.. 98, 300 60
Advanced logistics system utility support-----------------. 30, 500 25
Addition to depot central heating plant------------------.......-------------..--------......................36,100 90
TERMINAL ACCESS APRON
Mr. PATrEN. You are requesting a terminal access apron at a cost
of $717,000. The Military Airlift Command's construction program
in support of the C-5A had included major airfreight terminals at
each of the air materiel areas. This plan was abandoned in favor of
building major airfreight terminal complexes at Travis and Dover
Air Force Bases in the United States and at certain receiving installa-
tions overseas.
Now there seem to be numerous projects appearing under the spon-
sorship of AFLC to expand the airfreight capability of various air
materiel areas. Have you merely shifted the programing of these fa-
cilities from MAC to AFLC, or can a legitimate argument be made
that these additional facilities are needed by AFLC to support its own
internal workload?
Colonel MANSPERGER. No, there has been no change in our plan.
I think you may recall that in the late sixties when we were first
starting our air terminal program, we considered building airfreight
terminals at the major MAC bases and also building inland at the
AMA's in support of the MAC activities. But these airfreight ter-
minals at the depots that we have in the program and are considering
are not in support of the worldwide Air Materiel Command complex.
They are in support of the Logistics Command complex.
Mr. PATTEN. Supply for the record the aircraft movement at each
of your AMA's.
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The following monthly average of aircraft movement is provided as requested.
REPORT ON AMA AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT
Wright-
Hill Kelly Tinker McClellan Robins Patterson AFB
L-100-30.............---------------. 90.0 60.0 60. 0 90.0 60.0 120.0
L-188................. ------------------ 60. 0 60.0 90.0 ---------------------------- 120.0
DC-9-----------------.................. 150.0 30.0 120.0 60.0 180.0 30.0
C-5....------------------ 1.0 31.0 6.3 .1 1.7 1.0
C-124----------------- .3 5.3 -------------- 1.5 .5 .3
C-141----------------- 17.0 104.3 78.0 .8 16.3 5.0
C-130----------------- 5.7 16.7 2.5 .8 13.1 5.3
DC-8 ..... 13.7 5.3 ........- - - - - - --.....
Boeing 707 -------------------------- 2.7 2.3 __---------- --------- --------- ---------
324.0 323.7 364.4 153.2 271.6 281.6
The L-100-30 is a commercial version of the C-130 and the L-188 is the Lockheed Electra.
Mr. PATTEN. Can you show us on a map where the proposed apron
is located and tell us which large cargo aircraft cause traffic problems?
Colonel MANSPERGER. Here is our airfreight terminal. As you may
recall from previous years, here is the logistical materials processing
facility which you approved in fiscal year 1972, which will be con-
nected directly to the airfreight terminal with a tunnel and a conveyor
system. This is a mechanized system, a modern airfreight terminal.
Also, this processing facility connects directly to what will be the
small item warehouse in this adjoining facility here.
This ramp here is being used now by the helicopters and the train-
ing activity assigned to that Hill Air Force Base.
The helicopter or training activity also uses this taxiway. Today,
the majority of the traffic that comes into the airfreight terminal is
scheduled log-air, using the C-130's we were talking about, the civilian
version of them, and Lockheed Electras.
When they come into the terminal, the helicopter training activity
along this taxiway has to be disrupted. When the larger aircraft, the
C-141's and C-5's of MAC, come in, the 141 can barely get into the
area, the C-5 cannot. So the C-5's normally park out on the eastern
taxiway and are loaded there. When they are using these two taxiways,
the adjacent weapons loading area for the test activities, using F-4
aircraft, cannot be used. So it sterilizes both this taxiway and the
weapons loading area.
This project will provide expansion of the apron here and taxiway
across here, so we can bring all aircraft to the air freight terminal
area without disrupting training activities; we can turn the C-5 around
here and turn the C-141's around at these locations.
Mr. SIKES. Do you use any C-5's there ?
Colonel MANSPERGER. We run a limited number, not too many, but
when they do come we have the parking problem; then we must truck
the material all the way out to or from the mechanized freight ter-
minal. We lose the benefit of the mechanization.
Mr. SIHEs. Mechanization then permits you to load the C-5A as
well as the C-141?
Colonel MANSPERGER. Not quite directly, but generally, yes.
Mr. SiKEs. This shows a very limited number of C-5 aircraft ?
Colonel MANSPERGER. Yes, sir.
The majority of the traffic is the Log-Air, and this helps answer that
question about the MAC versus the Logistics Command activities.
Mr. SIKEs. Very well.
Mr. PATTEN. We will insert in the record the summary page of the
economic evaluation of this project. This shows a savings investment
ratio of 1.21.
[The information follows:]
/ ;; FiscA ve nI 3 DEPARTMENT 4. IN:TALLATIO
, MILITARYY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 DEC 1972 1974 (Con!inued) AP HILL AIR FCPCE BASE
:04-74-STA 113-321 ADDITION TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL APRON
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Addition to the Air Freight Terminal apron and taxiway to permit processing of modern cargo aircz aft.
2 PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Additional apron space required to taxi, park, and load/unload larger jet-powered LOGAIR and n military caugo
aircraft within required safety criteria and prescribed ground time generating an annual savir ;s exceeding
590,000.
SUiARIY OiF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A
P rn y Construction Cost
b. Supportinq Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. CtEr Cost
f. Total Cost
A.LUE 0_' LE'i. .NG ACILITIES
NET I.tVEST.:EL
P.'_SENT VALUE (p?. .) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Pcimary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Sa ar ring Facilicy Ccst
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. F.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
PRESENT VALUE OF E LISTING FACILITY
P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
SAV1NGS/II'VESE1ENT RATIO
$ 615,000
102,000
-0-
50,190
-0-
$ 767,190
$ -0-
$ 767,190
$ 5090,35
84,558
-0-
50.190
-0-
$ 644,583
$ -0O-
$ 644,583
1.21
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED
a. Civilian $ 5,500 $ 2,034
b. Military N/A
c. Other N/A
2. OPERATING
a. Materials $ $
b. Utilities -0- 11
c. MLaintenance & Repairs -0- 1,161
d. Other 144,362 51,522
3. OVEI{2EAD No Change
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL
S TINCS
5. ONE-TIME SAVINGS
5a. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIME
SAVINGS
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD)
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR)
9. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 YR DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A 0.097
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) OCT 1974
'tCJ. ~ "'~ " 3 -L sv'sxs sri a .5 C SC-aTE. Page s. S of S
:---~~~~~~. t'5..-i - ------- - -Y----
00
ANNUAL
SAVINGS
$ 3,466
$ -0-
110,
1 !,i61
92,541
$ 94,735
$902,256
-0-
-C-
$902,256
$702;.256
Page No. 5 of 8
149
Mr. PATTEN. Which of the items in this request are part of the depot
plant modernization program?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, three of the five items.
The apron project we were just talking about, the depot aircraft
landing gear overhaul facility, and the addition to the central heating
plant.
DEPOT AIRCRAFT LANDING GEAR OVERHAUL FACILITY
Mr. PAITEN. You are requesting a depot aircraft landing gear over-
haul facility at a cost of $6,858,000. The economic evaluation for this
project, part of which we will insert in the record at this point,
refers to this project as the depot aircraft and engine accessories over-
haul shop. Has the scope or the type of the work to be done in this
facility changed as a result of the TRC plan? Provide that for the
record.
[The information follows:]
S. c. . MIL!TA.Y CONSTRUCTION PRO-ECT DATA
15 De 72 1974 (Con..nued)
I . ... u... . Ie. T. .. T.. ... .
202-74-107 211-254 DEPOT AIRCRAFT AND ENGINE AC
ECONOMIC E
y. ESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project provides a 280,213 squ
depot-'evel overhaul complex. Build
and two "hor Shelters will be remove
2. F2OJECT sENEFITS ABSITRc5C: The new: facility will eliminate
and quality control with a reduce
saving? of over $2,990,000 and ar
S' .1-:Y OF P.OJCT 2 STS - FORMAT A
1. I ESI>:E.. T
a. Prima.rv Construction Cost (S!13H 6S incl) $ 6,263,
. Suph;ortng Facilty Cosy (SIO:! @ 6% incl) 698,
c. initial utf going EquLp.-en , Costs not $ 2,980,
d. Do n Cost ('. 7 of ,, b, c abovc) $ 695,
i . Ohr:: Costs
o.tal Co ,st $10,636,
1. VLbU CF .XISTI"'G FACILTI-S $ 622,
3. N T : T . : i $10,014 ,
. P-CSE1T VALUE (:'V) 01 I -i :21NT
a. PV of Pi ary C.onstrucc on st $ 5,192,
-. of S crtin Faciy Cost $ 578,
(DCiscCu.t 7t .819):
C. P7 of init..al O.ur.-i.:g Eq i ar.nt S 4,151,
(Discolrt accr 1.393)
d. "c..gn Cost $ 695,
e. Pi Cf ot;nr Coss
S Tc.al 29 of Invs ..onts $10,617,
. E IL AIR FORCE BASETION
AF ,HILL AIR FORCE BASE
ACCESSORIES OVERHAUL SHOP
VAULATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
are foot shop for combining five landing gear support shops into single
ding number 264, 261, 258, an- 211 comprising 65,676 square feet . il be rar.d
ed.
intershop manual handling of material and combine operations, sup rvslan
tion in repair flow time and support requirements, resulting in a o.ne-time
n annual savings of over $1,266,000.
SUOI'ARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FOR 'AT S B
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED AN .L SA
000 a. Civilian $7,478,511 $6,304,051 $ 1,174,63
000
00
870
-0-
870
324
046
030
642
140
870
-0-
632
b. Military N/A
c. Other N/A
2. OPERATING
a. Materials $ 309,517 $ 237,090G
b. Utilities $ 31,088 $ 55,42
c. Maint & Rpr $ 70,360 $ 49,037
d. Other $ 26,987 $ 4,167
3. OVERHEAD
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS $7,916,463 $6,649,827
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS
5. CN:E-TIE SAVINGS
5a. PYRESE.T VALUE OF ONE-TI<E SAVINGS
6. TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS (BOD)
7. TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS (EASE YEAR)
72, s17
(24,3'4)
21,323
22,820
$ 1,2 6, _:
$.2,063,44
$ 2,9S2.E:1
$ 2,59-,542
$I4,657,9 3
$91,550,4 1
o- 13
r
1
r
- -- ------ ---;- -;- --
:; 3 Z~r
~~~~~__ _ ~_ _______^~_ _1 _ ~^ I~ /___~II____ _1_. - --- - II------ ---^II^~Y P-IL~PI~ ~Y-
I _
-I
15 De: 72 1 1974
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(Conhinued)
I 211-254 DEPOT AIRCRAFT AND ENGINE ACCESSORIES OVERHAUL SHOP
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A (continued)
P SENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
P SENT VALUE OF NET INVEST
S VINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO (Format B, Line 7
divided by Line 6, Format A)
YEARS TO AMORTIZE $10,014,046 - $2,992,551
$1,266,636
$ 622,824
$ 9,994,858
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B (c ntinued)
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 YEARS. Discount Factor 10% Tablo A 0.097
Tabl B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY-76
1.16
5.54 yr
_ . ---Page ..... -,,
DF c ' !0 i.-0U ,,ITI-, IS 0 0000E.
202-7--107
Ili is Fi2 i meat "
page No. -- 3 of 13
.1O: - o1 O- 0-14
S AF -EN IL . AIR FORCE BASETON
AF HILL AIR FORCE BASE
- -I I _1___ 1__11_
__________ i
i
;ro ar n Er-irc
152
Colonel MoRRow. No, sir; it has not.
The name applied to it earlier was misappropriate.
Ogden Hill Air Force Base has been our central point for land-
ing gear repair in the past.
Under the TRC concept, with a minor exception it will be the sole
point for all landing gear repair. So all of it will be effected in this
building.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Will there be a vastly increased workload in this
building as a result of the establishment of the landing gear tech-
nology repair center here?
Were there other functions which you had been planning to perform
in this building which will now not be performed there?
Colonel MORROw. There will be a substantial increase in landing gear
overhaul with a corresponding decrease in other workloads at Ogden.
Ogden will remain substantialy the same. There is a small gain in over-
all workload there.
Mr. NICHOLAS. How about the scope of this facility, the way it is
designed, the original justification for the facility ?
Was this justified at this scope solely for landing gear repair?
Colonel MORROW. No, sir, not solely, but that is the predominant
repairable that will have depot-level maintenance performed on it.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Could you provide for the record a comparison of
what the types of workloads in this facility would have been before
you established the TRC for landing gear repair at Hill and what is
planned now ?
Colonel MoRRow. We will provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
WORKLOAD COMPARISON AT HILL AFB LANDING GEAR REPAIR FACILITY
Types of workloads before TRC:
Aircraft Components
RF/F-4----------------------- Wheels, brakes, strut components, tail hooks.
B52---------------------------- Wheels, brakes, strut components.
F-111-------------------------- Do.
F-101-------------------------- Do.
F-105------------------------- Do.
F-104-------------------------- Do.
C-121------------------------- Do.
C-7---------------------------- Do.
C-135-------------- ------------ Do.
KC-135------------------------ Do.
KC-97- -------- - -------- Do.
T-39-------------------------- Do.
C-141---------------------- Wheels, brakes.
C-124 ----------------------- Wheels.
B-57 --- ----------------- Do.
F-4 ---------------------------- Boundary layer duct.
RF-4-----------------------. Camera cases.
Minuteman missile ---.--------- Shock struts and gyro cases.
Missile trailer------------------ Actuator piston.
Types of workloads after TRC:
Exactly the same tyDe of workload wi'l be performed after TRC as before
TRC except more landing gear type work will be accomplished. The added types
are as follows:
Aircraft Components
C-141 --------------------_ Strut components.
C-5A---------------_______ Wheels, brakes, limited strut components.
A-7------------------------ Wheels, brakes, strut components.
Hours
Workload before TRC-------------____-__-__ -__-- ___ __ 534, 000
Added workload--__----- ________-___--------------______ 331, 000
Workload with TRC____---- __-__-__-__--__-_ ------- 865, 000
Mr. NICHOLAS. Have you redone the economic analysis based on the
TRC workload ?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes; they have all been reaccomplished based on
the TRC workloading. I might add, Mr. Nicholas, that basically what
we are doing at Ogden as well as all the other depots is increasing the
density of our workloading, a point not addressed to the committee
before. In compliance with a very recent OSD interpretation of our
capacity expression, our utilization automatically dropped some 25
percent. So, partly what we are doing in this building is increasing
the amount of work which will go into them.
There will be that additional workload in this building.
Mr. PATTEN. What savings .do you show as a result of consolidating
landing gear repair at Hill ?
Colonel MoRRow. Sir, we show annual recurring benefits of $1.266
million.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Will this assignment worsen your situation with
regard to landing gear repair space at Hill ?
Colonel MORROW. No, sir; it will not. By consolidating all our land-
ing gear repair at Ogden, we will actually be able to better accommo-
date the higher density workloading prescribed by OSD. In other
words, we will be able to put more of the same kind of work in a re-
duced amount of space.
Mr. NicHOLAS. What facilities are you currently using for this
repair?
Colonel MoRRow. Fifteen separate facilities, sir, scattered around the
base at the present time. Some of these are temporary facilities; some of
them are old THOR missile shelters. We are also using outside space.
Mr. NICHOLAS. The economic evaluation supplied the committee
staff shows a savings-investment ratio of 1.16. Could you get along with
the present facilities ?
Colonel MORRow. We could get along with them, sir, but it would not
be in the interest of good economy. It would not be an efficient opera-
tion, as we would like. Some of the buildings would require repair
because they are old. A number of them will be demolished. We will
demolish some 11 buildings and 4 of the THOR shelters as a con-
sequence of the new construction we are requesting. This project is
also required to enable us to comply with pollution control and occu-
pational safety and health standards.
Mr. NICHOLAs. What future use will you make of the existing space ?
Colonel MORRow. Most of it will be demolished, sir; 162,000 feet of
the existing space will be demolished. That includes 47,000-some-odd
square feet of outside space being used. We will no longer have it on
the records.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you feel that the 1.1 savings-investment ratio
is conservative?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir, we do feel it is conservative.
Mr. NICHOLAs. When you analyze it, it looks low.
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir; it is very conservative.
We have incorporated all the conservative factors that the investi-
gative staff asked us to. We believe there are savings we will not
be able to quantify at this time in almost all of our projects.
Mr. NICHOLAS. In comparison with other projects, this seems to have
a fairly low ratio. Would it be particularly true of this project that
there are savings which you do not feel you can account for?
Colonel MORROw. I believe it very well would be, sir.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Will you provide details on that for the record.
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
NONQUANTIFIABLE SAVINGS ACCRUING FROM HILL AFB GEAR REPAIR PROJECT
Examples of nonquantified benefits :
(1) 48,450 ft.2 of structurally sound space now used as a machine shop
which will go into the proposed facility will become available to centralize and
properly house sheet metal activities. Since the sheet metal shops are over-
crowded and scattered throughout the maintenance complex, this is a worth-
while project in itself; yet, no benefits were claimed in the sheet metal area.
(2) A 29,500 ft 2 structurally sound facility will become available to pro-
vide a very adequate general training lab, a base life support shop, and an aero-
space ground equipment shop. These activities are currently scattered through
nine substandard facilities which will be disposed of upon completion of the
project. The proper housing of these activities will provide significant benefits
which were not calculated or claimed.
(3) Foundry, cleaning, and welding activities will be accomplished in ac-
cordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and pollution
standards.
(4) The risk from fire and personal injuries will be substantially reduced.
(5) The use of modern mechanized handling systems will considerably reduce
damage compared to the present forklift, truck and manual methods. In the
absence of historical data, this was not quantified.
(6) Material in process is now temporarily stored outside exposed to weather
deterioration. The cost of removing snow and possible corrosion was not cal-
culated.
(7) The working environment will be considerably improved through exhaust
systems, fume scrubbers, pollution control equipment, lighting, and related work
area consolidations. This will likely produce less absenteeism, better supervision,
improved attitudes, reduced rehired and retraining costs, and better commu-
nication between support shops. As a result, the quality of work performed will
increase with an attendant increase in reliability of weapons systems and mean
time between failures. These benefits, although unqualified, present tremendous
potential savings to the Government.
BALLISTIC MISSILE PROCESSING SUPPORT FACILITIES
Mr. PATTEN. You are requesting ballistic missile processing sup-
port facilities in the amount of $3 million. What is the requirement for
this project?
Colonel MANSPERGER. There are three primary things that require
storage of missiles at Hill Air Force Base or in the area, in addition
to the existing requirement for the normal specialized repair activity
at the depot.
One of these requirements is force modernization. That is replacing
Minuteman I with Minuteman II, and Minuteman II with Minuteman
III. Force modernization also entails EMP hardening, command data
buffering, and dust retrofit.
In these modernization projects the missile comes out of the forward
silo, comes to the depot for any work that may be required at that
point, and then must be stored until silo upgrading is complete. Minute-
man is very critical in the storage in that it has a temperature limitation
of 80 degrees plus or minus 20; humidity must remain below 50 per-
cent, and assignment must be assured.
An additional requirement is to allow continued Minuteman pro-
duction at an economical pace. At the point that we stop Minuteman
production, we will still have further requirements for missiles for
test and training purposes. These missiles must be stored until they are
needed.
The third factor is the older missiles that will come out of the inven-
tory. They still have value for research activities within the Depart-
ment of Defense and private institutions and must therefore be stored
until they can be used.
Mr. PATTEN. Would the colleges want one for research? You said
private.
Colonel MANSPERGER. If you want to send a payload into space, one
that the Minuteman booster can put into space, provided it is a legiti-
mate scientific effort, the Air Force will put it into space in one of our
surplus-to-our-strategic force deterrent missiles for the cost of the
launch.
Mr. PATTEN. Will the addition to the central heating plant meet all
present or anticipated pollution requirements and complete the re-
quirements at this base ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, it will.
Mr. PATTEN. We will insert the summary of the economic analysis
of this project in the record.
[The information follows:]
EcoNoMIC ANALYsIs or HILL BALLISTIC MISSILE SUPPORT FACILITY
A formal economic analysis was not considered necessary for this project since
there is no suitable alternative. Keeping the production line open to provide addi-
tional missiles on an as-needed basis would be so costly that it cannot be con-
sidered and the modernization programs must go on if the increased missile
capabilities are to be achieved.
ADVANCED LOGISTICS SYSTEM UTILITY SUPPORT
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to the advanced logistics system utility
support project.
You are requesting $625,000 for the utility support for the advanced
logistics system at Hill. What is the cost of the total program to
provide this utility support at all AFLC bases ?
General REILLY. $3,277,000 for the six projects.
Mr. PATrEN. What type of utilities are you providing and why are
they necessary at all of these places ?
156
General REILLY. Each of these projects will provide backup air-
conditioning and electric pgwer for the large computer installations
which are going in. This is to provide insurance against power outages
and against breakdown of the existing air-conditioning equipment.
Mr. PATTEN. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. PATTEN. Do you have the basic utilities to support these compu-
ters already?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. IS this merely a standby system in case the primary
system fails?
General REILLY. That is the principal intent of the system.
Mr. PATTEN. What could happen if there were a power outage?
General REILLY. If there is a power outage that exceeds the time
that the uninterruptible supply can handle, it means that the com-
puter ceases to function as it should. In the advanced logistics system
which all of these computers support, we are eliminating some 92
computers in logistics command and consolidating into seven com-
puters.
So it is very important that these computers be .available 7 days
a week, 24 hours a day.
Mr. PATTEN. Does the whole system depend upon one base; if you
had an outage at one base, would it degrade the whole system ?
General REILLY. Yes; it would.
We have the computers at each of the five air materiel areas and
at the headquarters at Wright-Patterson. All computers operate as a
unit. Any one computer out of commission degrades the entire system.
Mr. PATTEN. What is the status of the procurement of the equip-
ment which will be installed?
General RETLLY. The first comnuter has been installed at Wright-
Patterson. The other six computers will be installed beginning in
September thro nh the first of next year.
Mr. PP~EN. Will you provide details for the record ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
STATUS. OF PROCUREMENT OF ALS EQUIPMENT
Date to be
Date to be ordered installed
Site:
Kelly AFB, Tex ....------------------------------------------- On order--------......... Sept. 1,1973
Kelly AFR, Tex. (NOLS). -----------------------------------------do. ------------- Do.
Tinker AFR, Okla.. - -do. ---------- Oct. 1,1973
Robins AFB, Ga.... ----------------------------------------------do---------- Nov. 1,1973
Hill AFB, Utah. -------------------------------------------- July 1, 1973- .... Dec. 1,1973
McClellan AFB, Calif .. ..---------------------------------------- Aug. 1, 1973-...... Jan. 1,1974
ALS hardware will be acquired on a lease with option for purchase basis. A
special purchase conversion incentive price will be available to the Government
during the period July 1, 1973 through March 15. 1975, provided that firm
purchase orders are received by the Control Data Corp. (CDC) by April 15, 1975.
This special purchase conversion incentive price is based upon the net rental
paid to CDC by the Government, and can amount to a substantial credit for
the lease payments, depending upon installation date and the date the Gov-
ernment exercises its option to purchase.
Mr. SIKEs. Thank you, gentlemen. We will resume at 10 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
157
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1973.
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEX.
Mr. SIKES. The committee will come to order.
We will continue our discussion of line items. We will take first
Kelly Air Force Base, Tex. The request is for $6,101,000. Place page 23
in the record.
[The page follows:]
FY 194 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
A. T ILLY AIR FORCE BASE
4. crrano or MAN* oemT IunaEu a. INSTLLaTIO CONTRoL NUImn I6. sTATE/ COUNTy
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND MBPB TEXAS
7. sAu A or INITIAL OCCUPANCy couNr (.) I. NE Es CI
ACTIVE 1917 BEXAR SI MILES SO T OF AN AO TA
II. uIESloN OR uron rucroIN 2. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
TACTICAL AIRLIFT WING (RESERVE) PERSONNEL STRENGTH or ICE ELITED CIIIAN I 1rCE ENLIsTTOTAL
(0 ) (1 ( (0) (f) (,N
TACTICAL FIGHTER SQUADRON (AIR NATIONAL GUARD) FoP 31 December 81 l 221 - 75 -
...NNE.( dPy 76 776 3,54 20,8 75 990
SAN ANTONIO AIR MATERIEL AREA DEPOT I INVENTORY
LAD ACRES LANO COST (00) IMPROVEMENT ("00) TOTAL (800)
USAF SECURITY SERVICE HEADQUARTERS () 2)
* o N 4,103 2,807 165,77 168 1
AIR FORCE ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY LECU" U sEN.. 639 1 26 6
N. INVEETORV ToT.L (RE. CE Id-s Nr o . -- 168,u6
O AYuCR.oniTION NOr T NY I IENTRY
a.............. I .....II ... 4,444
I YMATED AUTHoNICzaiON - NEXT 4 4YAN. 0000
I. GRAND TOTAL fUd +.10 219.208
IA, SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
* * TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE f~ r i o r i t COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
COE NO. (Io0) (1o0C)
A d N 2 A
211-254 Depot Aircraft Engine Fuel System Controls Overhaul and Test
Facility I SF 86,475 3,166 86,475 3,166
218-868 Precision Measurement Equipment Facility I SF 39,900 1,824 39,900 1,824
441-257 Hazardous Materials Storage Facility + SF 25,500 482 25,500 482
811-14A Advanced Logistics System Utility Support I iS IS 629 LS 629
TOTAL 6,101 6,101
DD~~~39O! W p~s3OONAU
PAW 8 .. 23
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE
The second base is Kelly Air Force Base, located 6 miles southwest of San
Antonio, Tex. The base supports the San Antonio Air Materiel Area Headquar-
ters, Air Force Environmental Laboratory, headquarters of the USAF Security
Service, a Reserve tactical airlift wing, and an Air National Guard tactical
fighter group. The total program being requested contains $6,101,000 for four
projects.
The first project provides an addition to, and air conditioning of, the aircraft
engine fuel system control overhaul and test facility. Existing facilities are too
small to handle the heavy workload and do not have environmental control to
assure quality controlled production.
The second project will construct a 39,900 square foot new depot precision
measurement equipment facility. Existing facilities make effective use of space
difficult and, in some cases, impossible.
The third project provides for construction of a new 25,500 square foot facility
in which to store hazardous materials. Present facilities are a substandard build-
ing and an open area approximately 1.5 miles away.
The last project will provide alternate electric power supply, air conditioning,
and associated utilities to support operation of advanced logistics system com-
puter equipment.
AFLC-KELLY AFB, TEX.-DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent complete
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Depot aircraft engine fuel system controls overhaul and test facility--------------- 5$190, 000 50
Precision measurement equipment facility ........--------------------------------- 114, 000 95
Hazardous materials storage facility -------------------------------------- 36, 000 95
Advanced logistics system utility support----------------.. ..------------------ 30, 700 25
Mr. SIKES. The request is for a depot aircraft engine fuel system
control, et cetera, a precision measurement equipment facility, a haz-
ardous materials storage facility, and for advanced logistics system
utility support.
DEPOT PLANT MODERNIZATION PROJECTS
Which of these projects are part of the depot plant modernization
program?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, the first three projects, the engine
fuel system controls overhaul and test facility, precision measure-
ment equipment facility, and hazardous materials storage are part of
our depot modernization program.
Mr. SIKES. Are they justifiable on economic grounds ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, economics play a major role in their
justification. However, they are needed in addition to Vust the eco-
nomic requirement.
Mr. SIKES. Why ?
General REILLY. Well, the existing facilities we have, Mr. Chairman,
are unsatisfactory from many viewpoints.
Mr. SIKES. You mean they are out of date?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; out of date. They don't have the proper
environmental controls and activities are scattered and fragmented
about the base. Our depot modernization program actually provides
for a great deal of consolidation of activities. It also provides for re-
placement or upgrading of functionally outmoded facilities and,
with this, of course, comes large economic savings. We are showing
sizable savings with each of these projects.
Mr. SIKES. Provide details on savings for the record.
20-632 0 - 73 - 11
160
[The information follows:]
ECONOMICS OF KELLY DPMP PROJECTS
Tangible savings to be obtained from these three projects are described below:
Project: Depot A/C Engineering Fuel System Control.
Present value of net investment: $6,771,471.
Annual savings
Personnel: 28 personnel------------------------------------ $365, 384
Operating :
Materials-reduction in reject rate, damage, etc--------------- 1, 269, 067
Utilities-(increase) -------------------------------------- (2, 629)
Maintenance and repair----------------- ----------------- 5,401
Total annual savings1--------------------------------, 637, 223
One-time savings
Cost avoidance associated with the automated as opposed to continu-
ing with manual test stands------------------------------- $1, 280, 600
Present value of benefits: $13,082,396.
Savings/investment ratio: 1.93.
Project: PME Laboratory.
Present value of net investment: $989,774.
Annual savings
Personnel:
Productivity increase of 9 percent (17 personnel) -------------$208, 609
Operating :
Materials and supplies------------------------------------ 17, 950
Utilities (increase) ----------------------------------- (18, 713)
Maintenance and repair (increase) --------------------------(1, 596)
Total annual savings----------------------------------206, 250
One-time savings
Avoidance of major refurbishing ---------------------------$1, 396, 000
Present value of benefits: $1,783,432.
Savings/investment ratio: 1.80.
Project: Hazardous material storage facility.
Present value of net investment: $462,632.
Annual savings
Personnel: Savings in the inefficiencies associated with scattered
facilities (2 personnel) $------------------------------------ 24, 242
Operating :
Materials and supplies-material damage/spoilage, vehicle
operation ---------------------------------------------15, 417
Maintenance and repair -----------------------------------5, 046
Total annual savings-----------------------------------44, 705
One-time savings
Refurbishing of building, and vehicle replacement avoided----------- $257, 376
Present value of benefits : $497,438.
Savings/investment ratio: 1.08.
In addition to the above tangible savings, the depot modernization program
will provide many intangible benefits. For example, it will provide a logistics
plant capable of rapid and effective response to deterrent forces and mobiliza-
tion, if required. Another example is increased quality and reliability in weapons
systems which will increase mission effectiveness and reduce logistical support.
In the case of the fuel system facility, the project is needed to keep up with
the technology of a new weapon system fuel control to be maintained. Other
factors not accounted for include reduced risk, improved personnel comfort,
reduced span of control, and the meeting of pollution, health and safety
standards.
ENGINE OVERHAUL
Mr. SIKES. Is the new engine overhaul building in operation
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be in operation
shortly. Colonel Morrow, would you please come forward and sit at
the table?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, the depot aircraft engine
overhaul facility at Kelly is partially operational. We are presently
moving workload into the facility and will be operational in October
of this year.
Mr. SIKgE. Can you verify your estimates of the efficiency of this
building?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir; we will. We have in being the process
which will verify after the fact the benefits that we expected to re-
ceive, including the efficiency. We have every reason to believe that we
will meet or exceed our expectations.
As you know, sir, we have already reduced the engine procurement
of the T-56, J-79, and TF-39 substantially. We have already pro-
gramed 220 less personnel into that facility as a result of anticipated
increases in workforce productivity.
Mr. SIKES. That is a very encouraging prediction. I would like to
have for the record the present engine workload projections as com-
pared to those you gave us last year.
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
ENGINE WORKLOAD, KELLY AFB DEPOT A/C OVERHAUL FACILITY
Last year's projections are compared against this year's projections below:
FISCAL YEAR 1973 ESTIMATE-FISCAL YEAR/NUMBER OF ENGINES
Engine 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
F-100 PW------------------------------------ 1 18 119 275 ...
T-56_------------------ 1, 030 724 1,092 1,060 1,099 1,099
J-79. ---------------- - 344 282 282 326 285 300 ...
TF-39----------------- 96 114 187 118 176 158
Total ..........-- 1,470 1,120 1,562 1,522 1,679 1,832
FISCAL YEAR 1974 ESTIMATE-FISCAL YEAR/NUMBER OF ENGINES
Engine 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
F-100 PW------- ---------------------------1 17 122 265 181
T-56 ....... _..------------------ 763 677 706 772 773 830
1-79 ---------------------------- 519 611 678 645 604 604
TF-39........................-. . 110 104 114 118 118 127
Total....-__ ................. 1,392 1,393 1,515 1,657 1,760 1,742
Mr. SIKES. Will this facility be fully utilized or underutilized in
fiscal 1974?
Colonel MORROw. Sir, it will not be underutilized. However, we
won't reach the desired goal of 85-percent utilization under the new
DOD criteria until fiscal 1977. We will be slightly over 80 percent in
162
fiscal 1974 and drop slightly and get up to 85 percent by fiscal year
1977.
Mr. SIKES. There has been a reduction in the anticipated workload.
Will you meet projections for the out years?
Colonel MORROW. Mr. Chairman, while the total workload at Kelly
is projected to drop, primarily in the airframe and exchangeable or
accessory area, the engine workload at Kelly is due to have a substan-
tial increase, about 700,000 hours, over the next 4 years.
Mr. SIKES. Will that meet the projections which you provided the
committee last year ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir, it will. I think it will slightly exceed what
we projected last year because in accordance with the new DOD
criteria, we will be utilizing the building about 85 percent.
FLYING HOURS
Mr. SIRES. Provide for the record the flying hours upon which your
AFLC projected workload is based for fiscal year 1974 and the out
years, and show how this compares to flying hours in recent years.
[The information follows:]
FLYING HOUR BASIS FOR AFLC WORKLOAD-FISCAL YEAR 1974 AND OUTYEAES
The flying hours upon which the AFLC projected workload is based for fiscal
year 1974 and outyears in comparison to flying hours in recent years is shown
below :
Flying hours'
Fiscal year: Millions
1970 --------------------------------------- 6. 8
1971 --------------------------------------------------------- 5. 9
1972 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5.3
1973 (projected) -------------------------------------------- 4. 8
Flying hours programed
Fiscal year : Millions
1974 -----------------------------------------5. 7
1975 ----------------------------5. 8
1976 -----------------------------------------5.3
1977 -----------------------------------------5.4
1 These do not translate directly to organic depot airframe support requirements due to
modifications, changes in overhaul requirements, number supported by contract, etc.
AIRCRAFT ENGINE FUEL SYSTEM FACILITIES
Mr. SIKES. Where will the aircraft engine fuel system facility be
located with reference to the engine shop ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, it will be about a thousand yards south of the
engine shop on the southeast edge of the industrial complex.
Mr. SIRES. That is better than a half mile. Is that the best location
for it ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, it is considering that we are modifying the
existing structure that is there. It is adjacent to and in the same indus-
trial area -as other shops that will be doing similar type of work.
Mr. SIRES. Let us see it on the map.
Colonel MoRRow. Sir, here is the engine overhaul shop right here.
Then the new facility is located right in here, sir.
Mr. SIKEs. I see.
Colonel MoRRow. Which is the southeast.
Mr. SIKES. Could this facility be partly or fully accommodated in
the engine shop itself ?
Colonel MORROW. NO, sir. We will be utilizing the engine shop to
its full capacity and in addition, sir, due to the nature of the testing
portion of this facility it is constructed for hazardous test purposes
and would actually necessitate building a structure inside of another
structure if we were to put it in any other building.
Mr. SIKES. What is the status of the procurement of the test stands
to support the engine for the F-15 ?
Colonel MORRow. The first stands are under procurement now with
some $2.6 million of depot plant modernization program funds from
fiscal 1973 and an additional $5.2 million of F-15 funds. The balance
will be using fiscal 1974 F-15 funds.
Mr. SIKES. The committee would like to be kept informed of the
status of the procurement.
Colonel MoRRow. We will do that sir.
[The information follows:]
STATUS OF F-15 TEST STANDS
Procurement using F-15 funds is currently being funded on a partial allotment
basis in accordance with OSD direction on F-100-PW engine (F-15 .fighter air-
craft) procurement. Future information will be provided as information on
other F-15 procurement is reported.
Mr. SIKES. What is the estimated construction time of the project?
General REILLY. About 9 months, Mr. Chairman. We would hope to
have it complete early in calendar year 1975.
Mr. SIKES. Will that tie in with the equipment delivery dates?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir, it will. As you know, the leadtime for
most equipment is less than it is for construction.
Mr. SIHES. Is that true of this type of equipment ?
Colonel MORROW. In this particular case, yes, it will.
Mr. SIKES. Insert in the record the summary of the economic anal-
ysis for this project.
[The information follows:]
... r .... . MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA . A n . . Ins.rION
15 Jar 1973 I 1974 (conu.e1 AF KELLY AIR FORCE BASE
211-254 ADD TO AND AIR CONDITION AIRCRAFT ENGINE FUEL SYSTEM TEST FACILITY
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
L. DEICRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project provides modernization of 54,265 SF of existing aircraft engine fuel accessories overhaul and test
facility in direct support of TF-39, T-56, and J-79 engine workloads. The additional construction prorides
35,000 SF for an overhaul and test capability for the fuel components in direct support of the F-100 engine
production program.
2. PROJECT BENEFITS: This modernization of Industrial Shops will increase effectiveness and reduce the material budget, damage to components
and the reject rate. This project supports a one-time savings of $1,221,692 and annual savings of over $1,637,223.
SUMMARY Y OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
L. IN 7ESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost
b. Supporting Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. Other Cost
f. Total Costs
2. VA,UE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3. NE! INVESTMENT
3. PRESENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
5. PE:SENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
5. P. ,. OF NET INVESTMENT
7. SA 'INGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
$2,351,000
323,000
2,973,000
187,180
287,000
$6,121,180
-0-
$6,121,180
$1,948,979
267,767
4,141,389
187,180
226,156
$6,771,471
-0-
6,771,471
1.93
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED
a. Civilian $5,237,120 $4,871,736
b. Military
c. Other
2. OPERATING
a. Materials $1,684,367 $ 415,300
b. Utilities 42,334 44,963
c. Maintenance & Repairs 12,096 6,695
d. Other
3. OVERHEAD
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS
5. ONE-TIME SAVINGS
58. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIME SAVINGS
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD)
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR)
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A 0.097
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY 1976
DD RE E L.I R C
ANNUAL
SAVINGS
$ 365,381
$ 1,269,067
(2,62))
5,40L
$ 1,637,223
$15,592,911
1,280,601
$ 1,009,111
$16,602,023
$13,082,395
DD, .... 1391c re vious ION . s so .
Page No. 24.6
-o:In o - 0-l REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
165
PRECISION MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT FACILITY
Mr. SIKES. What are you using at this time for a precision measure-
ment equipment facility ?
Colonel MORRow. Presently about 95 percent of our precision meas-
urement equipment work, is being accomplished in one building, build-
ing 326. This is a building that was built in 1942 to house a different
kind of workload. It is a two-story building that is close to the rail-
road tracks in the southeast portion of Kelly and subject to vibration,
also, the building is not equipped for environmental control which is
of the utmost importance.
Mr. SixES. Provide the economic analysis for the record.
[The information follows:]
i. cr FIsCAL man MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA .. .e..ENT .. . Ist....
15 Jan 1973 1974 (Coniuaeo' AF 'KELLY AIR FORCE BASE
5. POlE TCAMESR 0. PROJECT TITLE
218-868 PRECISION MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT FACILITY
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 39,900 sq ft facility to replace Bldg 326.
2. PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT, Increase work force productivity and reduced overhaul and material handling losses will result in one-time
savings of $88,426 and annual savings of $232,562.
SUI4ARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
II VESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost
b. Sunporting Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. Other Cost
.f, Total Costs
VLUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
NIT INVESTMENT
PRESENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
SPVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
1: PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED
$1,532,000 a. Civilian $2,109,225 $1,900,616
292,000 b. Military
-0- c. Other
127,680 2. OPERATING
-0- a. Materials 93,500 75,550
$1,951,680 b. Utilities 20,465 39,178
649,390 c.. Maintenance 6 Repairs 5,847 7,443
1,302,290 d. Other
3. OVER EAD
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
$1,270,028 4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS
242,068 5. ONE-TIME SAVINGS
-0- Sa. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIMF SAVINGS
127,068 6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD)
-0-
$1,639,164 7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR)
649,390
989,774 8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A .867
TA.WS B 9.524
1.80 9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) - FY 197
ANNUAL
SAVINGS
$ 208,109
(1,' 13)
( 1, ,96)
206, :50
1,964, .25
--_92,(90
92, .90
2,057, )15
1,783, 132
DD 1 9 c 'E'SSEIIIEI ETEE - - ua EIE OMADSBITL -,N..5~
oro:mno.-ul REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
Pae N _29. 5
DD, IF.. 1391c .pyM . rE. 1 19SI....
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE
Mr. SIKES. Is the hazardous materials storage facility an urgent
project?
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir, it is. At present the only available facil-
ity is a 30-year-old wooden structure. It is unsafe to store the exotic
materials, inflammables, and other hazardous chemicals we must
store there.
Mr.. SIKES. I want to applaud you on your answers. I believe you
have studied your lesson.
Colonel MORRow. Thank you.
Mr. SIKES. Are there questions ?
Mr. PATTEN. What is the inventory for your hazardous materials
storage facility that is worth spending close to a half million dollars?
What would you have ? Paints and gasoline ?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir; paints, lubricants and chemicals.
Mr. PATTEN. Would you keep gasoline there ?
Colonel MoRRow. Not gasoline, no, sir; chemicals, gases of certain
kinds, paint products, those things that have a low flaming point,
explosion point.
Mr. PATTEN. Would you be able to guess the size of the inventory
of course your building is not going to be very large.
Generall REILLY. There will be about a million and a half dolia.
worth of equipment stored in there.
Mr. PATTEN. It runs that high?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; it does.
MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIF.
Mr. SIKES. Take up McClellan. Insert page 28 in the record.
[The page follows:]
oDATE a aP . FYM T s lusTALL TIo*
FY 19-j. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
AF MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
cowano oR Mu.A IE:NT aularu a InsTALL1TION corNotL .uuee a sYATEcounT
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND PRJY CALIFORNIA
T. sTAru1 1 YeA or INITIAL OCCUPANCY e CoUNTY rU.S) eo.A -c
ACTIVE 1936 SACRAMENTO SEVEN MILES NOR
ON- uNsion o u4o UNCTIOS t PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNELT LR ENLISTED CIVILIAN TOTAL
AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING WING (AEROSPACE ora H c (4 ) rs ( . . (e er (N. Tor
DEFENSE COMMAND) . OP 31 December 1 854 4,051 15,043 - - 76 1 - T1
.....(t r 21 1 3,9131352 -6 1 6 - 184798
WEATER RECONAISSANCE WING (MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND) INVENTORY
TACTICAL AIRLIFT GROUP (RESERVE) LAND ACRES LAND COST (S000) IMPROVEMENT (0o0) TOTAL (D000)
SACRAMENTO AIR MATERIEL AREA DEPOT a ... , ,a . 133 12 1 1 29
. INVE TORS TOTAL (B~ , rITdm UA or . m 2-- 1 98
4- ATuoRICiAo NOT NT N 1 IO-TonT 10. 46
*A UT .O Io TIUIo R N .-U NUT EN . I T .Ol o,..D . 3,171
A UnMAUTEDAuNONIzTo NNxD N yAN 000
S. GRAND TOTAL (c d... + N 204504
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATOoi TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CAT AR PROJECT TITLE Prior t* COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COOT SCOPE COST
O (O) (S O
134-511 Aircraft Navigation and Landing Facility I EA 1 92 1 92
211-15A Weapons System Components Plating Shop I SF 65,000 2,480 65,000 2,480
811-14A Advanced Logistics System Utility Support I LS IS 599 LS 599
TOTAL 3,171
Di,, . ~-
,,, CONGRESSIONAL
Pap TON 8
00
:169
MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
The third base in the Air Force Logistics Command program is McClellan Air
Force Base, located 7 miles northeast of Sacramento, Calif. The primary mission
of this base is to support the Sacramento Air Materiel Area Headquarters. It also
supports an Aerospace Defense Command Airborne Early Warning Control Wing;
a Military Airlift Command Weather Reconnaissance Wing; and a Reserve Tac-
tical Airlift Group. The total program requested at this location amounts to
$3,171,000 and consists of the following three projects.
The first project will construct a single facility for two radio aids to air navi-
gation. Existing TACAN must be relocated due to high radio frequency interfer-
ence and there are no existing VOR facilities.
The second project provides for the construction of a new 65,000 SF weapons
system components plating and metal processing shop. Existing plating shop is too
small and does not have an effective exhaust system to remove toxic fumes.
The last item will provide alternate electric power supply, air-conditioning, and
associated utilities to support operation of an advanced logistics system computer
equipment.
AFLC-McCLELLAN AFB, CALIF.-DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent complete,
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Aircraft navigation and landing facility... ...... ................------------------------------------ $1, 650 100
Weapons system components plating shop.. -.........-..-..-..138, 100 65
Advanced logistics system utility support .................-................. 29, 300 25
Mr. SIKEs. The request for $3,171,000.
Are all of the items listed here part of the depot plant modernization
program ?
General REILLY. No, Mr. Chairman; just the plating shop.
LONG-RANGE DEPOT PROGRAM AT MCCLELLAN
Mr. 'SIES. What additional items are you planning in the outyears
here?
[The information follows:]
OUTYEAR CONSTRUCTION AT MCCLELLAN
DPMP facilities planned for McClellan AFB in the outyears are shown below:
Thousands
Logistical material processing facility ___________________________ $8, 643
Depot aircraft overhaul facility 2d increment ___________-___---------- 5, 277
Depot maintenance hanger_______________-_____----__--- 1, 468
Logistical material storage facility 3---------------- ___ , 3099
Convert to communication and electrical shop ______________------- 1612
Depot reclamation shop ________________--- - ------------------__ 393
Depot electrical system overhaul and test shop______________------ 1, 703
Jet fuel storage ----------------------------------------------1, 200
Fuel storage-------------------------------------------------- 770
Total ------------------------------------------------- 23, 165
Mr. SIKES. Which of the projects will be required because of the
establishment of TRC's at McClellan ?
Colonel MORROW. None of the projects will be required because of
the TRC workload moving into McClellan. If we were not to obtain
the projects we have in the current year program we would have to put
them into a separate status facility we presently have there.
TECHNICAL REPAIR CENTERS AT M'CLELLAN
Mr. SIKES. What TRC's are you planning to establish here, and why
is this the best location for them? Have you conducted an economic
analysis of assigning them here versus elsewhere ?
Colonel MORROW. In addition to heavy airframes, McClellan will
also be the technology repair center for ground communications-elec-
tronics-meteorological equipment, electrical components, fluid drive
accessories (hydraulics), and flight instruments.
Economics, both long and short term, is an important consideration
in all workload assignments. In this particular case McClellan w'as
assigned additional workload of type now performed to more fully
utilize existing resources; that is, facilities, equipment, and skills.
Economic analyses were not conducted for each individual TRC as-
signment; rather, economic benefits were determined for the total
concept. TRC implementation will amortize in 2 years and save
approximately $13 million per year thereafter.
Mr. SIKES. Do you have the one-time costs and the savings of estab-
lishing 'all of these TRC's at McClellan?
Colonel MORROw. Sir, it is difficult to single out a single depot for
cost savings but may I put it in perspective ? It will cost us $26 million,
total cost, for implementing TRC's throughout the Logistics Com-
mand. We have less than a pro rata share of this for McClellan.
There would be about $5 million for the cost at McClellan.
At the same time, we will avoid the need for $7.4 million in con-
struction at McClellan as a consequence of moving into the TRC
concept.
SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS STAFF REPORT ON M'CLELLAN
Mr. SIKES. The committee's surveys and investigations staff has
completed a report on the military construction program at McClellan.
This will be inserted in the record at this time.
[The information follows:]
MAY 25, 1973.
Memorandum for the chairman :
Re Depot repair facilities proposed for McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento,
Calif.
By directive dated February 22, 1973, the committee requested that an inquiry
be made into the requirement for depot repair facilities proposed for McClellan
Air Force Base, Calif.
The review has been completed and the results are included in this report.
Respectfully submitted,
L. R. KIRKPATRICK,
Director, Surveys and Investigations Staff,
House Appropriations Committee.
C. R. ANDERSON,
Chief of the Surveys and Investigations Staff,
House Appropriations Committee.
171
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Directive --------------------------------------------------171
A. Investigative staff's comments----------------------------- 171
II. Depot plant modernization program/technology repair centers------ 172
A. Depot plant modernization program----------------------172
B. Technology repair centers------------------------------ 172
1. Background ------------------------------------172
2. Proposed implementation-------------------------177
3. Cost ------- ---------------------------------- 177
III. Impact of technology repair center plan on military construction
projects proposed for the five air materiel areas----------------- 179
A. McClelland Air Force Base-------------------- --------- 179
B. Other four air materiel areas--------------------------- 182
1V. Projects for which air force currently requesting funds for McClellan
Air Force Base------------------------------------------- 182
A. Depot aircraft overhaul facility--------------------------182
B. Weapons system components plating shop------------------184
I. DIRECTIVE
By directive dated February 22, 1973, the committee requested that an inquiry
be made into the requirement for the depot repair facilities proposed for
McClellan Air Force Base, Calif. This review was to include, but not be limited
to, a complete analysis of the workload projections for depot repair at McClellan;
an analysis of the adequacy of the Air Force techniques for projecting workload,
the adequacy or deficiency in depot facilities to meet this workload; and the
exhaustiveness of the alternatives considered in allocating depot workload. Also,
the review was to include verification of estimates of savings for one or more
of the depot facilities proposed for McClellan.
A. INVESTIGATIVE STAFF'S COMMENTS
On April 17, 1973, the Secretary of Defense announced the consolidation,
reduction, realinement, and closing of certain military installations. With regard
to the Air Force, it was noted that the Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC)
would implement a new concept of depot repair of aircraft and, as a result,
the missions, types of work, and workloads of its five air materiel areas (AMA's)
would be realined. Under this concept, the repair of aeronautical components and
subsystems that require similar skills, facilities, and test equipment would be
consolidated into specialized entities within the five AMA's, to be known as
technology repair centers (TRC's).
Beginning June 4, 1973, AFLC and AMA officials plan to hold a series of meet-
ings, and visit each of the five AMA's, to develop detailed information as to how
the realinement would be implemented. Final review and approval by Head-
quarters, AFLC, is scheduled for July 31, 1973. To be resolved, among other
things, are (1) the number of employees who would accept transfers, (2) the
number of employees who would have to be hired and trained, (3) what equip-
ment would be moved between AMA's, (4) how the workloads would be phased
out of the losing AMA's, and (5) how the workloads would be phased into the
gaining AMA's. Involved in the consolidation is 6.5 million of the total of 15
million direct man-hours of repair performed annually on components and sub-
systems. Of the 6.5 million man-hours, the Sacramento Air Materiel Area (SM-
AMA), located at McClellan Air Force Base (AFB), would gain 885,000 direct
man-hours of work and 369 additional authorized manpower spaces. When ap-
proved by AFLC, full implementation is programed for the end of fiscal year
1976 at an estimated cost of over $26 million (operation and maintenance funds).
172
In view of the magnitude and estimated cost of the proposed realinement of
workloads under the TRC plan, and the lack of specific information as to the
total impact on each of the losing/gaining AMA's, the investigative staff is of
the opinion, and OSD officials agree, that no meaningful review or evaluation can
be made at this time of the military construction projects proposed for McOlellan
AFB in support of the Directorate of Maintenance. Therefore, it is recommended
that the funding of these projects be deferred until the Air Force has (1) de-
veloped final plans for the realinement of the workloads of the five AMA's, (2)
reassessed and revalidated the need for and the scope of the projects, and (3)
afforded the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) an opportunity to again
review and approve the projects taking into consideration the proposed imple-
mentation of the TRC plan. Also, although the investigative staff did not review
in detail the projects proposed for the other four AMA's (Odgen-OOAMA; Okla-
homa City-OCAMA; San Antonio-SAAMA; and Warner Robins-WRAMA), it is
suggested that those projects included in the Air Force fiscal year 1974 program,
which are in support of maintenance, be deferred for the same reasons. In support
of this recommendation, Air Force officials acknowledged that, because of the
proposed implementation of the TRO plan, changes have been made in the
fiscal year 1974 military construction program for the five AMA's, some as late
as April 1973. Further, as more details become available regarding the imple-
mentation of the plan, it will be necessary to review all the projects proposed
for the out-years and some of them may have to be revised or canceled.
There follows a discussion of the AFLO's depot plant modernization program,
which was initiated in 1970, its relationship to the AFLC military construction
programs for its five AMA's. and its relationship to the proposed establishment
of TRC's at each of the AMA's.
II. DEPOT PLANT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM/TECHNOLOGY REPAIR CENTERS
A. DEPOT PLANT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
In 1969 and 1970 the AFLC hired a management consultant firm, at a cost of
$816,544, to develop a 5-year depot plant modernization program to upgrade
the maintenance and distribution facilities, and related equipment, of its five
AMA's. The program was based on the latest available information regarding
long-range planning, programing, and fiscal guidance and was estimated to cost
$464 million ($280 million to modernize facilities and $184 million to modernize
equipment). During the fiscal year 1972 hearing before the Subcommittee on
Military Construction, Committee on Appropriations. House of Representatives,
the commander of the AFLC submitted a statement which explained in detail the
policies and rationale of the program.
Based on the objectives of the depot plant modernization program, which is
updated annually, the AFLC validated all the military construction projects
included in its fiscal year 1972, 1973, and 1974 military construction programs
which were submitted to Headquarters, Air Force, in July prior to the fiscal
year involved. And, further, these projects had to be proposed and approved by
officials of the AMA's months prior to being approved by Headquarters, AFLC.
The point being made is that the projects included in the Air Force fiscal year
1974 military construction program submitted to the Committee on Appropria-
tions, House of Representatives, were approved by Headquarters, AFLC, by
July 1972 and were validated, at that time, based on AFLO's depot plant modern-
ization program, and the missions, types of work, and projected total workloads
of its five AMA's.
All the good words about the depot plant modernization program notwith-
standing, the AFLC has proposed a grandiose plan whereby the missions, types
of work, and projected workloads of the directorates of maintenance at its five
AMA's would be changed drastically by the establishment of TRC's.
B. TECHNOLOGY REPAIR CENTERS
1. Background
The investigative staff made no detailed analysis of the AFLC proposed plan to
establish TRC's at its five AMA's except as it affected the AFLC military con-
struction program and, particularly, the projects proposed for McClellan AFB. Set
forth below, however, is some pertinent information regarding the formulation of
the TRC plan and how it would be implemented and funded. As an aside, Air
Force officials take the position that they have the endorsement of the OSD to
initiate the plan; however, they consider its implementation to be an operational
173
matter which does not require the approval of the OSD. OSD officials, on the other
hand, are of the opinion that, although the TRC concept appears to be valid,
before AFLC begins the implementation, or obligates any funds, there should be
a complete reassessment of the requirement, capabilities, and capacities for per-
forming aeronautical overhaul and repair work on a DOD-wide basis. They
pointed out that all the military departments have established a mechanized
depot maintenance programing system and, although as yet, all the desired in-
formation has not been stored in the data banks, the systems have been developed
to the point that meaningful information can be extracted to make such a review.
According to Air Force officials, the idea of establishing TRC's, or the grouping
of homogeneous workloads at one location, was developed partly as a result of the
issuance of DOD Directive 4151.1, dated June 20, 1970, and entitled "Use of Con-
tractor and Government Resources for Maintenance of Materiel." This directive
stated that (a) the extent of facility capability and capacity within the military
departments for depot support of mission-essential equipment will be kept to the
minimum required to insure a ready and controlled source of technical compe-
tence and resources necessary to meet military contingencies, and (b) organic
depot maintenance, generally, will be planned to accomplish no more than 70
percent of the gross mission-essential depot maintenance workload requirement
with a facility capacity loading ata minimum of 85 percent, on a 40-hour week,
one-shift basis.
On July 19, 1971, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logis-
tics), after reviewing the DOD aircraft engine requirement, capabilities, and ca-
pacities study, advised the Departments that the most significant finding of this
study was the existence of excess capacity in DOD for depot maintenance of air-
craft engines. He was concerned that a similar condition existed with regard to
the total DOD aeronautical depot maintenance workloads and instructed that
there be prompt implementation by the Departments of a mechanized depot main-
tenance programing system which would permit routine reassessment of plans
consistent with changes in the force structures.
In order to comply with the OSD instructions, the AFLC began to study
methods whereby capacity could be reduced and utilization increased. In the
past, the AFLC operated on a "general depot" concept wherein depot overhaul
and repair work was assigned by weapon systems or Federal supply class cate-
gories and, as a result, each AMA often performed the same kind of work and had
similar types of skills and equipment. It was reasoned that air frames, hydraulics,
engines, and related support workloads probably could not be consolidated be-
cause of the scope and volume of the mission-essential workloads and some dispro-
portionately high facility capital investment costs. Conversely, it appeared that
aeronautical components and subsystems workloads, referred to by the Air Force
as exchangeables, perhaps could be consolidated/realined because this type of
repair work required similar techniques, disciplines, skills, facilities, and test
equipment. Preliminary studies disclosed there were about 188 family groups of
components and subsystems which fell into 18 basic technologies and, further,
work associated with more than one technology often was being performed at
more than one AMA.
From May through August 1972, an AFLC task force reviewed all facets of the
repair work on components and subsystems and recommended that similar tech-
nologies be consolidated into specialized entities within five AMA's, and be named
TRC's.
It was expected that such action would produce the following benefits:
Minimum redundancy: Currently, the AFLC has 52 repair points for the 18
technologies, or an average of almost 3 AMA repair points per technology. Under
the TRC realinement, the 52 repair points would be reduced to 23.
Reduced management overhead: By reducing the number of multiple repair
points engaged in the same technology, the management overhead at the AMA's
would be reduced by about 1,100 manpower spaces. This total consists of
net reductions of 1,273 at OCAMA and 932 at SAAMA and net increases of 27
at OOAMA, 369 at SMAMA, and 709 at WRAMA.
Reduce excess facilities: With full implementation of the TRC plan, the AFLC
would reduce the capacity of its AMA's by about 2 million square feet. This
drawdown would involve the elimination of maintenance operations from some
200 separate buildings which would be returned to the base engineer.
Improved plant utilization: By consolidating similar workloads into fewer
repair locations and by drawing down the overall output capacity of the AMA's.
utilization would increase and thereby the AFLC would come closer to complying
with OSD instructions and policies.
174
Mission and mobilization balance: Implementation of the TRC plan would
afford a better balanced workload distribution between the AMA's. Currently
the AFLC has a high of 28 percent of its total workload assigned to one AMA
and a low of 12 percent assigned to another depot. Under the TRC plan, these
percentages would range from 23 to 17 percent.
There following two schedules which show:
(a) Wnere the total of 15 million direct labor man-hours is currently
performed each year on the repair of aeronautical components and subsystems
by technologies, and how the AFLC proposes to realine the total workload
by technologies under the TRC plan.
(b) Of the total of 15 million direct labor man-hours, a summary of AMA
losses/gains involving the 6.5 million man-hours of workload which would
be transferred under the TRC plan. As the schedule indicates, the AFLC
plans to contract out about .3 million man-hours of this workload. This
workload is currently performed at McClellan AFB.
REALIGNMENT OF AFLC DIRECT LABOR MANHOURS BY TECHNOLOGIES BY AMA, UNDER TRC CONCEPT
C m s s
Technologies OOAMA OCAMA SMAMA SAAMA WRAMA OOAMA OCAMA SM PMI SAAM A WWLA AGMC*
1i. Airborne Electronics 259 295 144 789 2,190 - 3,677
2. Life Support 53 15 15 93 - - - 176
3. Propellors - - - 151 - 151
4. Gyros 1 5 272 179 - 322 - - - - 714 204
5. Nuclear Components - - 133 - - - 133 - -
Electronic AGE 44 - - 487 - - 531 -
7. Electro - Mechanical AGE - 27 - ** - 295**- -
7 * - 2 - 295
8. Airmunitions 256 - - - 256 - -
. Photographics 397 2 - 1 400 - -
10. Training Devices 125 - 1 - - 126
11. Weapons - 327 327 - -
12. Missile Components 464 47 15 231 757 -
013. Landing Gear 510 1 4 148 261 924 - -
14. Instruments
Navigation Accessories 308 420 139 8 48 923
Electrical Mechanical 99 1 1 84 3 188
Press e Tem erature/Humidit 22 7 1 61 91 -
Flight control Accessories 474 138 486 - 12 - 1.110 -
Automatic Flight Control 61 168 132 - 168 529 -
Engine - 211 9 - 220 -
15. Electrical Components 151 6 194 484 8 843 -
16. Ground CEM - 1,374 20 - - 1394 -
17. Oxygen - 156- - - 156
18. Hydraul.ics
Constant Speed Drives - 170 - - 170 -
Pneumatics - 264 - 264 - _
Ram Air Turbine - 5- -
Fluid Driven Hydraulics 262 210 198 37 1 708 -
Total
*Newark Air Force Station,
Newark, Ohio
**To be contracted out
3,635 2,368 2,892 2,266 3,816 27 1,339 4 664 4,718 204
Current Assignments (OOOs)
TFRCAs n~c,,+ e t 000
176
TRANSFER OF DIRECT LABOR MAN-HOURS BETWEEN AIR MATERIEL AREAS
[In thousands!
To-
From- OOAMA OCAMA SMAMA SAAMA WRAMA Newark Contract Total
Ogden (OOAMA)--....--.-.-.. ------ 61 887 44 457 0 8 1,457
Oklahoma City (OCAMA)..... 478 ..... . 354 0 363 204 0 1,399
Sacramento (SMAMA). 161 141 61....... 0 338 0 278 918
San Antonio (SAAMA)....... 301 0 541 .......... 804 0 9 1,655
Warner Robins (WRAMA).... 871 168 21 0 .......... O 0 1,060
Total-..---....---- 1,811 370 1,803 44 1,962 204 295 6,489
NET CHANGE-DIRECT LABOR MAN-HOURS
Increase Decrease
Ogden.-------------------------............----------------------------...-------354,000 ..............
Oklahoma City-----...---..........................................-------------------------------------------....------------ 1,029,000
Sacramento -----------------------------------.......-----------..---------- 885,000 ..............
San Antonio..-----------------...................................---------------------------------------....------- 1,611,000
Warner Robins........... ------------------------------------------------------902,000-------
Newark/Contract............----------------------------------------------------- 499, 000
After the proposed establishment of TRC's was approved by the AFLC, officials
at headquarters, Air Force, and the OSD, were briefed on the proposed plan in
December 1972 and January 1973, respectively. Later, because the implementation
of the plan involved the transfer of more than 50 personnel employed at military
installations, it became a part of the OSD base closure program which was not
announced until April 17, 1973. In addition to the secrecy which surrounded this
announcement, AFLC officials acknowledged that the proposed establishment of
TRC's had been "tightly held" within the command headquarters and that, as of
April 17, 1973, few AMA officials, and no officials of other Air Force commands,
knew what was planned or what impact it would have on their operations.
After the AFLC decided to retain its five AMA's, and after the AFLC had
approved the recommendations of the AFLC task force that TRC's be established
within the five AMA's, it created an ad hoc group to review alternative posturing
of its AMA's. This group, using as a starting point the current structure of the
AMA's (general depot), considered the following alternatives: (a) restructuring
from five to four general depots, (b) restructuring from five general depots to
four depots with TRC's, and (c) restructuring from five general depots to five
depots with TRC's. It probably did not startle anyone when the group submitted
its report which strongly recommended that the AMA's be restructured from five
general depots to five depots with TRC's. The investigative staff examined the
report submitted by this group, and discussed its findings with OSD officials, and
it was agreed that the findings are meaningless because:
(a) The official comment of the AFLC on the report and recommendations
of this ad hoc group was: "The Study has not been coordinated or staffed
within headquarters, AFLC ; headquarters, Air Force, has not been provided
access to the study results; and as such, the study must be viewed as only
the working papers of the ad hoc group. Further, with the passage of time.
a large portion of the findings of this group has been overtaken by events."
(b) The AFLC mechanized depot maintenance programing system was
not used by this ad hoc group, instead, data requested from the command by
this group was prepared manually.
The recommendations made by this ad hoc group, as was true with the AFLC
task force which initiated the TRC concept, were known to few headquarters,
AFLC, or AMA personnel, and no officials of other Air Force commands. In fact,
when the investigative staff was informed of the findings of this group in April
1973, the briefing was classified "Secret." It has subsequently been declassified.
Since the AFLC and its AMA's are strictly service/support organizations, it is
difficult to understand how AFLC officials believed a practical and workable TRC
plan could be developed without consulting its customers, that is, the other
operating (using) Air Force commands. As it was aptly put by an Air Force
official, there has been no serious objection to the recommendations made by the.
177
task force and the ad hoc group because, as of April 1973, responsible officials who
might object did not know the details of the proposed implementation of the TRC
plan, or precisely what impact it would have on their operations.
2. Proposed implementation
After the announcement by the OSD on April 17, 1973, regarding the consolida-
tion, realinement, and closing of certain military installations, the AFLC began
to develop a series of plans as to how the TRC concept would be implemented.
The schedule was as follows:
MILESTONES FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN TO IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGY REPAIR CENTER CONCEPT
Begin End
Headquarters, AFLC, distribute TRC guidance ....._. ___ Apr. 19---..-.-.--- Apr. 20.
AMAs establish implementation group........................... Apr. 19-------- - Apr. 27.
Gaining AMAs preparation of draft plans..................................... Apr. 30........---------- June 1.
Joint gaining/losing AMA meetings at losing AMA____....................... June 4............. July 6.
Gaining AMA final plan for consolidation of work _-.-. ----....---_-_ July 9-----------July 20.
Joint Headquarters, AFLC/AMA plan review. July 23.........---------... July 27.
Headquarters, AFLC, approval of detailed plans---. - - July 31....
According to AFLC officials, the following preliminary actions would be
required :
(a) Individual plans prepared for each TRC.
(b) Task groups established at headquarters, AFLC, and at each of the
losing/gaining AMA's.
(c) Item managers/system managers begin identifying, by Federal stock
number all components and subsystems impacted by the TRC plan..
(d) The item managers/system managers then negotiate with the losing
AMA to assure proper assets are placed in the pipeline.
(e) Update the depot plant modernization program to show the impacts
of the proposed changes on military construction projects.
(f) Prepare schedules for the phased transfer of workloads to begin by
January 1, 1974, and completed by the end of fiscal year 1976.
Cost
According to Air Force officials, the implementation of the TRC plan would
cost over $26 million by the end of fiscal year 1976. They plan to pay from the
operation and maintenance appropriations such expenses as severance pay,
second destination transportation of equipment, and relocation of personnel.
The Depot Maintenance Industrial Fund at the gaining AMA's will budget to
absorb all other expenses such as training, plus dismantling and installation
of equipment. As of April 1973, the estimated cost items were as follows:
Estimated costs for implementation
Millions
Equipment relocation: Dismantle shop equipment, shipping, installation,
and repair/calibration/certification.-------------------_______ $4. 4
Manpower productivity loss: Loss of productivity at the losing AMA's
attributed to low morale, production disruptions, lack of assets, de-
creased materiel support, equipment moves, and facility alterations. Loss
of productivity at the gaining AMA's because of facility alteration,
equipment installation, production buildup, lack of assets, and learning
curve for new personnel __________ ------------------- 9. 3
Training: Hiring and training new personnel ------------------------ 4.5
Transfer of personnel and severance pay ______________ ------------7. 8
Total one-time cost ------------------------------------ 26. O0
There are other costs which have not been resolved at this time, such as procure-
ment of new equipment, modifications of existing buildings, and disruptions in
the pipeline of assets and materials. The latter, according to an OSD official,
could be substantial. Also, the investigative staff determined that the estimates
do not include costs which may be incurred in connection with Sec. 1013 of the
homeowners assistance program (Public Law 89-754). This section, as amended,
permits benefits to eligible DOD military and civilian personnel if their property
has decreased in value because of an announced base closure or personnel reduc-
tions, and they could not sell their property at the before-announcement fair
market value.
Upon completion of the implementation of the TRC plan, AFLC officials believe
there would be a reduction of about 1,100 manpower authorizations which would
result in a recurring annual savings of $13.2 million. They acknowledged, how-
ever, that all these calculations are based on gross workload figures, and on the
assumption that the total workload for the five AMA's will remain constant
in the out-years.
During discussions with OSD officials, the following additional comments were
made regarding the proposed TRC plan:
(a) The Air Force is promising various benefits from the implementation
of the plan, including increased utilization of the remaining maintenance
facilities and the reduction of about 1,100 manpower spaces, even though
these benefits may not be directly related to the proposed realinement of the
workloads. The projected reduction in manpower spaces primarily involves
indirect labor personnel, however, realinement of the workloads according
to technologies should result in efficiencies and productivity increases with
resultant savings in direct labor personnel. They suspect that increased
utilization and many of the reductions in manpower spaces might be due
to compacting operations into less space-as evidenced by the net reduction
of about 1.9 million square feet of space which purportedly would occur by
implementation of the TRC plan. As a minimum, the Air Force should take
the following actions prior to implementation of the plan :
(1) Determine how much the AMA's can draw down (compress) their
capacity (square feet) by realinement of their present workloads into
less space/buildings.
(2) Determine how many manpower authorizations would be elimi-
nated as a result of this draw down.
(3) Then take a look at implementation of the TRC plan and com-
pare the estimated number of manpower spaces which would be saved by
accomplishing the above to the reductions projected by implementing the
TRC plan. If most of the savings turn out to be indirect labor attributable
to compacting operations, rather than realinement of the workloads,
then the cost of implementing the TRC plan probably would not be
justified.
(b) Within the DOD, millions of dollars are being spent to disperse the
locations of weapon systems for national defense purposes (e.g., SAC satel-
lite basing program) whereas, under the TRC plan, the repair capabilities for
components and subsystems for many of the aeronautical weapon systems
would be concentrated at single locations.
(c) Even if the TRC concept is valid, realinement of AFLC workload under
this concept does not, in itself, justify retention of the five AMA overhaul and
repair complexes with their current capacities. The OSD is attempting to
achieve better utilization of all DOD resources for maintenance of materiel,
and to reduce the amount of duplication of these resources within the military
departments. With regard to maintenance of aircraft weapon systems, this
will not be accomplished until all the DOD workloads are programed against
the total resources of the DOD, or until the OSD establishes single DOD
agencies/managers responsible for overhaul and repair of distinct areas of
aircrafts, for example, engines, frames, or hydraulic systems.
179
III. IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY REPAIR CENTER PLAN ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTrs PROPOSED FOR THE FIVE AIR MATERIEL AREAS
As an introduction, the investigative staff would like to point out that consid-
erable difficulty was experienced in attempting to review and evaluate the mili-
tary construction projects proposed for the AFLC's five AMA's because, due to
varying instructions issued by AFLC personnel working in the control tower, it
was not always clear whether a project's flight pattern was inbound, outbound, or
in a hold pattern.
A. MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
As a result of the proposed implementation of the TRC plan, the investigative
staff found there would be, in varying degrees, a need for the AFLC to alter, revise,
or cancel the military construction projects proposed for the McClellan AFB which
were in support of the directorate of maintenance. To begin with, all such projects
were proposed and validated in accordance with the objectives of the AFLC depot
plant modernization program which, as of now, has little relationship with the
objectives of the TRC plan. Also, the projects were approved before Air Force
headquarters or the OSD had any detailed information as to the magnitude and
estimated cost of the TRC plan, and before the proposed changes in the missions,
types of work, and workloads of the five AMA's.
There follows the results of a review made by the investigative staff of the
maintenance projects proposed for McClellan AFB which demonstrate the con-
fusion which abounds within the AFLC as to the validity of the projects.
The AFLC proposed fiscal year 1974 military construction program, as sub-
mitted to Headquarters, Air Force, in July 1972, contained five projects in support
of the directorate of maintenance. In November 1972, another project, which was
not funded in fiscal year 1973, was added to the program, that is, Alter Aircraft
Armanent and Avionics Shop ($1.225 million).
The following chart identifies the six maintenance projects and traces their
inclusion/deletion from the Air Force fiscal year 1974 military construction pro-
gram from the time of their submission from SMAMA to Headquarters, AFLC;
from Headquarters, AFLC, to Headquarters, Air Force; from Headquarters, Air
Force, to the OSD; and from Headquarters, Air Force, to the Congress. Of the six
projects, only the Weapons Systems Components Plating Shop ($2.480 million)
project was included in the program submitted to the Congress.
PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR McCLELLAN AFB FOR INCLUSION IN FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Command OSD to HQ USAF
Baseto to SAF to OSD OSD to HQ USAF OSD to President's President's
Scope command USAF HQ USAF October- November- HQ USAF to OSD OMB Budget Budget To
Project title (s M(thos2 Jl2 to OSD November December December November December January Apri Co ngress
r eeet) (thousands) 12 1972 Oct 1,1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1973 May 3,1973
Weapons system components plating shop 65, $2,48 X X X X X X X X X X
Add to depot aircraft overhaul facility .. 184, 000 5, 277 X X X X X X X X
Alter aircraft armament and avionics shop_ 33, 574 1, 224 X 0
Aircraft weapons calibration shelter --- 52, 000 2,592 X X 0 . . .--- -- - "---- -X X X --
Convert to communications and electronics
shop ----19,200 612 X X 0
Depot electronics overhaul and test shop-_ 35, 200 1,703 X X 0
Note: X-Point in program where project was approved. O--Point in program where project was deleted.--------------------
Note: X-Point in program where project was approved. 0-Point in program where project was deleted.
181
Discussed below are the six projects shown on the foregoing chart and what
effect the TRC plan has on their current validity :
1. Weapons System Components Plating Shop-$2,480,000.
This is the only project included in the Air Force fiscal year 1974 military con-
struction program submitted to the Congress and it will be dealt with later in
this report.
2. Add to Depot Aircraft Overhaul Facility-$5,277,000.
This project is the second increment of a general purpose Depot Aircraft Over-
haul Facility which was included in the Air Force fiscal year 1973 military con-
struction program. Funds in the amount of $3,991 million were approved for the
first increment ($7.798 million requested) with the added requirement that the
entire project be restudied and revalidated. The OSD, even after a reclama by
the Air Force, disapproved the second increment for inclusion in the fiscal year
1974 program because the first increment had not been fully funded and the re-
programing action had not been approved by the Congress.
In addition, the investigative staff learned that the entire project has to be
revised because, under the proposed TRC work load realinement, the functions
performed by several shops which had been scheduled for relocation into this
proposed building would be moved to other AMAs. For example, of the seven
shops totaling 80,000 square feet which had been programed for one bay of this
building, three shops (hydrostatics, rafts and rubber, and parachutes) with a
total of 35,000 square feet would be transferred out of SMAMA.
3. Alter Aircraft Armament and Avionics Shop-$1,224,000.
This project, which involves an alteration to existing maintenance space, was
included in the Air Force fiscal year 1973 military construction program sub-
mitted to the Congress but it was not funded. The same project was included in
the Air Force fiscal year 1974 program as a "late starter" but was deleted in
April 1973 at the request of AFLC officials. The investigative staff learned that
SMAMA officials, after preliminary details of the proposed TRC realinement of
workloads was made available to them, found that avionics work was being
moved out of the SMAMA and, therefore, this project could no longer be jus-
tified. These SMAMA officials advised that when this was brought to the atten-
tion of Air Force Headquarters there was considerable "heart burn" because, by
this time, the Air Force program was ready for ,ubmission to the Congress.
4. Aircraft Weapons Calibration Shelter-$2,592,000.
This project involves a facility for operational checkout of the hydraulic
and electronic systems of late model fighter aircraft. Under the AFLC depot
plant modernization program, there was a requirement to consolidate these op-
erational functions but it was deleted from the Air Force fiscal year 1974 program
for budgetary reasons. Nevertheless, until April 1973, SMAMA and AFLC offi-
cials considered it a valid project and intended to include it in the fiscal year
1975 submittal to Headquarters, Air Force. These officials, after learning the
details of the TRC realinement of workloads, no longer consider this a valid proj-
ect because it is directly related to the armaments and avionics shop project which,
as mentioned above, was deleted from the fiscal year 1974 program.
5. Convert to Communications and Electronics Shop-$612,000.
This project would convert a general purpose shop area to an environmentally
controlled depot electronic component repair area to include sensitive test equip-
ment and mockups required for repair of electronic ground communications sys-
tems and navigational aids. AFLC officials advised this continues to be a valid
project, the only question being that, since this type of work would be consolidated
into SMAMA, it will have to be reevaluated to determine if the scope is adequate to
handle the increased workload.
6. Depot Electronics Overhaul and Test Shop--$1,703,000.
This project would provide a facility for testing, alining, and certifying mobile
and fixed ground radar systems. The AFLO considers this to be a valid project
but it will have to be reexamined to determine whether the scope is sufficient to
handle the realinement of workloads being moved into SMAMA.
In addition to the two projects mentioned above, which were deleted from the
fiscal year 1974 program because of the realinement of workloads at SMAMA,
AFLC officials advised that two additional projects were deleted in April 1973
from the fiscal year 1975 program because they can no longer be justified under
the TRC plan. These were projects for (1) "Ground Equipment Vehicle Parking"
($268,000) for the repair of aerospace ground equipment and (2) alteration of
"Organizational Aircraft Maintenance Shop" ($434,000).
B. OTHER FOUR AIR MATERIAL AREAS
After reviewing the military construction projects proposed for the McClellan
AFB, the Investigative Staff asked AFLC officials to review the depot plant
modernization programs for the other four AMA's (OOAMA, OCAMA, SAAMA,
and WRAMA) and to determine if the proposed TRC plan would affect any pro-
posed projects for these installations. Shown on the following schedule are the
projects which were included in the fiscal years 1974, 1975, and 1976 military
construction programs as of April 1973 that will have to be deleted, or substan-
tially reduced in scope, because of the change in missions, types of work, and total
workloads under the TRC plan :
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DELETED OR REVISED, FISCAL YEAR 1974-76 PROGRAMS
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Fiscal Original Reposture
Base and project title year cost costs Difference
Hill AFB (OOAMA):
Instrument shop. ___------------------------------- 1974 $776 0 -$776
Maintenance hangar ....---------------------------- 1975 4,443 $3, 821 -622
Material control lab - -- -- - - -- -- -- 1976 248 0 -248
Production support. ....----------------------------- 1976 505 0 -505
Tinker AFB (OCAMA):
Add to/alter engine test and storage------------------- 1975 413 95 -318
Add to/alter avionics shop--.........------------... .........----------- 1975 906 0 -906
Turbine shop-_ -___ _--___. ___- _.---------- 1976 410 0 -410
Industrial labs facility--------------------------- 1976 5,000 3,000 -2,000
Kelly AFB (SAAMA):
Aircraft general purpose shop----------------------1975 1,864 0 -1,864
Aerospace ground equipment shop------------------- 1975 208 0 -208
Aircraft maintenance organizational shop-------------- 1976 1,496 0 -1,496
Robbins AFB (WRAMA): No projects affected... ......
Although the investigative staff did not visit the other four AMA's, questions
were raised as to the requirement for and the scope of some of the projects
which the Air Force is retaining in its fiscal year 1974 military construction
program submitted to the Congress. For example, $6,961 million was requested
to construct a 280,213 square foot "Depot Aircraft and Engine Accessories Over-
haul Shop" at Hill AFB (OOAMA). After the TRC study was completed and
it was known that OOAMA would perform most of the landing gear repair
workload, the title of the project was changed to Depot Aircraft Landing Gear
Overhaul Facility," and the amount was revised to $6.858 million. The investi-
gative staff, however, could find no evidence that the Air Force had considered
whether the design of the facility, including its size, would be adequate to ac-
commodate the increased landing gear repair workload.
IV. PROJECTS FOR WHICH AIR FORCE IS CURRENTLY REQUESTING FUNDS FOR
MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
A. DEPOT AIRCRAFT OVERHAUL FACILITY
The Air Force plans to request a total of $13.075 million for a "Depot Aircraft
Overhaul Facility" which would have five bays and a total of 460,000 square
feet. Included in the Air Force fiscal year 1973 military construction program
was a request for $7.798 million to construct the first increment (three bays,
276,000 square feet). The Committee on Appropriations, House of Representa-
tives, approved the funding of $3.991 million with the stipulation that the Air
Force, after revalidating the need for the project, could request reprograming
of the balance of $3.807 million from other obligational authority available to
the Department.
On March 21, 1973, the Air Force concluded there was a valid requirement for
the project and requested permission from OSD to ask Congress to approve the
reprograming action. On April 4, 1973, OSD deferred action on the reprograming
request until the investigative staff completed its review of the military construc-
tion projects proposed for McClellan AFB. According to an OSD official, there
was an even more compelling reason not to approve the reprograming request;
namely, that he was aware the AFLC planned to implement a TRC plan which
183
would realine the missions, types of work, and workloads performed by the
AMA's, but he knew little regarding the details. In his opinion, with which the
investigative staff agrees, no approval action should be taken until the Air
Force has (1) reexamined this project and its supporting economic analysis and
(2) can assure the OSD it is a valid project taking into consideration both its
depot plant modernization program and the impact (of the implementation) of
the TRC plan on this installation. AFLC and SMAMA officials acknowledged
that the scope of certain shops programed for relocation in the first increment
would have to be revised based on what they now know of the implementation
of the TRC's. As previously mentioned in this report, OSD disapproved includ-
ing the project for the second increment ($5.277 million, two bays, 184,000
square feet) in the fiscal year 1974 program because the first increment had
not been fully funded.
On May 3, 1973, the Air Force again submitted the request for reprograming
action to OSD but, according to OSD officials, it probably will not be approved
until OSI) can further study the impact of the proposed TRC plan and can make
an overall review of the requirement for aircraft overhaul and repair facilities
on a DOD-wide basis.
The present aircraft component maintenance shops, consisting of approxi-
mately 34 operations, are located at 21 buildings scattered throughout the base-
some as far as 3 miles from the main disassembly and overhaul shops-and simi-
lar maintenance operations are currently being conducted in several of these
buildings. According to SMAMA officials, the wide dispersal of the operations
necessitates the duplication of equipment, materials, and manpower, as well as
excessive transportation and extended flow times (large pipeline inventories),
making it difficult to meet aircraft repair schedules. These officials also claim
that the current state-of-the-art repair techniques and mechanized material
handling systems cannot be used due to limitations of the existing facilities. They
further stated that the concentration of all operations in the proposed facility
would permit the incorporation of a mechanized material handling system which
would reduce flow time and eliminate the transportation system that is presently
necessary because of dispersed shop locations.
The first three bays would contain such shops as a machine shop, shops for
sheet metal manufacturing and sheet metal repair, a welding shop, and a foun-
dry. The shops located in these three bays would replace existing shops occupy-
ing 317,650 square feet in 14 buildings, of which 257,796 square feet would be
turned over to the base engineering office.
According to AFLC officials, the request for $7.798 million for the depot air-
craft overhaul facility was justified because the maintenance workload at
SMAMA would be increasing the AFLC needed to have a wartime maintenance
workload surge capability, and the revised economic analysis indicated that the
project was still an attractive investment. The revised economic analysis, which
generally conformed with the recommendations made by the investigative staff in
its report submitted on April 20, 1972, showed that the net investment for the
first increment of the project, adjusted to present value, was about $5.8 million
as shown below:
Primary construction cost..---....-------------------------------- $6, 120, 507
Supporting facility cost------------------------------------ 1344, 035
Initial outfitting equipment-------------------------------- 1, 648, 824
Design cost------------------------------------------ ----- 628, 716
Other cost------------------------------------------------ 259, 370
Subtotal ---------------------- -------------------- 9, 001, 452
Less-value of existing buildings to be released for other use------ 3, 245, 304
Net investment------------------------------------ -- 5, 756, 148
1 These two amounts comprise the requested $7.798 million in military construction funds,
adjusted to present value.
The economic analysis indicated that there would be one-time cost savings,
adjusted to present value, of about $0.6 million and recurring annual cost savings
of about $2.3 million which, adjusted to present value, would amount to about
$17 million over the 25-year economic life of the project. The total discounted
cost savings were $17,699,973, making a savings-investment ratio of 3.07.
The one-time cost savings included such items as inventory reductions, value
of production and transportation equipment which could be released for other
use and avoidance of replacement purchases of this equipment.
184
The annual recurring cost savings of $2,277,645 included about $2.1 million
for increased productivity. Cost savings were also projected for avoidance of
some of the costs presently incurred for preventive maintenance of equipment,
maintenance and repair of buildings, and transportation.
The investigative staff was told by SMAMA officials that the net investment
cost and projected cost savings shown in the economic analysis could be affected
by the realinement of maintenance workloads under the TRC concept. These
officials stated they could not, at this time, determine whether the workload
realinement would significantly affect the savings-investment ratio. They were
confident, however, that the ratio would remain in excess of 1.0 and that the
project would still be an attractive investment.
B. WEAPONS SYSTEM COMPONENTS PLATING SHOP
The Air Force fiscal year 1974 military construction program includes a request
for $2.48 million to construct a 60,000 square-foot weapon system components
plating shop. This is another military construction project which was approved
by the AFLC based on its depot plant modernization program for McClellan
AFB. Further, in addition to not knowing the full impact of the implementation
of the TRC plan on this project, the most disturbing and confusing factor is that
AFLC officials, as of April 1973, were not certain were the building would be
erected, if funded.
In order to consolidate the overhaul and repair functions at this installation,
AFLC officials approved four military construction projects which would be
erected in a straight line and all four projects would be serviced by an elaborate
and expensive mechanized material handling system. The complex would con-
sist of: a hydraulics shop ($874,000), which was funded in fiscal year 1970,
would be building No. 1; building No. 2 would be the first increment of the depot
aircraft overhaul facility ($7.798 million) for which the Air Force is currently
seeking approval of a reprograming action to obtain full funding; building No.
3 would be the second increment of the depot aircraft overhaul facility ($5.227
million) which was deleted from the fiscal year 1974 program by OSD because
the first increment was not fully funded; and building No. 4 would be the proposed
plating shop.
Given this set of facts, the investigative staff queried AFLC officials regarding
the logic of requesting funds to build a new plating shop when neither of the two
increments of the depot aircraft overhaul facility has been approved and fully
funded. Without the depot aircraft overhaul facility to house functions related
to the plating shop, the professed problem of inefficiency in the production line
for overhaul and repair would not be solved. The AFLC officials conceded that
without the depot aircraft overhaul facility they would have to relocate the
site for the proposed plating shop, probably at a location near the existing plating
facility, which is 2 miles away.
The purpose of a plating shop is to increase the usable life of aircraft com-
ponents by increasing their strength, hardness, wearing surface, and to provide
protection from corrosive elements. The existing plating shop was constructed
in 1952 and has an area of 49,580 square feet. The proposed plating shop was
requested because the existing plating shop was considered too small and be-
cause it has an antiquated exhaust system which cannot effectively remove
toxic fumes. The AFLC officials claim that -the size of the present facility and
the exhaust system interfere with the use of the latest plating techniques, create
health hazards, and result in high equipment maintenance costs.
As previously indicated, a total of $2.48 million in MCP funds was requested
for this project. The economic analysis for this project showed the net invest-
ment, adjusted to present value, to be about $3.5 million as shown below:
Primary construction cost------------------------------------ 1$1, 627, 327
Supporting facility cost---------------------------------------- 1428, 593
Initial outfitting equipment 1---------------------------------- , 199, 373
Design cost --------------------------------------------- 233, 870
Other cost------------------------------------------------- 23, 640
Net investment---- -------------------------------- 3, 512, 803
1 These two amounts comprise the requested $2.48 million in military construction funds,
adjusted to present value.
185
The economic analysis indicated that there would be a one-time cost savings,
adjusted to present value, of about $1.5 million and recurring annual cost
savings of about $285,000 which, adjusted to present value, would amount to
about $2.1 million over the 25-year economic life of the project. The total
discounted cost savings were $3,627,851, making a savings-investment ratio
of 1.03.
The one-time cost savings included the value of production and material'han-
dling equipment which would be released for other use, avoidance of replace-
ment purchases of this equipment and avoidance of overtime and additional
shift labor costs which would otherwise be incurred in the renovation of the
existing facility.
The annual recurring cost savings of $284,759 includes $69,341 for increased
productivity and $169,288 for release or reassignment of 12 indirect workers. The
economic analysis indicates that 6 of these 12 workers could be released or re-
assigned because relocation of the plating shop adjacent to the aircraft repair
support shops would allow for the installation of a mechanized material handling
system interconnecting all related shops. The estimated annual cost of the six
positions, which included forklift, tug and pickup drivers, and material dis-
patchers, is $84,644. Total cost savings for these six positions over the 25-year
economic life of the facility, adjusted to present value, would be $635,246.
The present value of initial outfitting equipment for the proposed plating
shop includes $208,950 for mechanized material handling equipment consisting
of bridge cranes, monorails, and conveyors. The investigative staff attempted to
determine whether this amount was an equitable allocation of the total cost of
the entire mechanized material handling system proposed for the SMAMA main-
tenance directorate, since savings of almost $84,000 in recurring annual person-
nel costs are dependent on this system. Officials of the SMAMA provided the in-
vestigative staff with various estimates of total procurement costs for the period
fiscal years, 1971-76 and these estimates ranged from $3 million to about $6
million. The $6 million estimate of about $4.3 million to be expended for equip-
ing the existing overhaul complex with mechanized materials handling equip-
ment. About $1.7 million was to be used for mechanized material handling equip-
ment which would be procured as initial outfitting equipment for the plating
shop and the first and second increments of the depot aircraft overhaul facility.
The mechanized material handling equipment for the plating shop and depot
aircraft overhaul facility was planned to tie into the mechanized material han-
dling system for the existing overhaul complex.
The investigative staff found, however, that the mechanized material handling
system for the existing overhaul complex is not included in the current depot
plant modernization program. The investigative staff was told by SMAMA of-
ficials that the justification for this system was no longer valid in light of
reduced overhaul workloads, the Vietnam situation, and depot maintenance work-
load reposturing under the TRC concept. The SMAMA officials said that the
need for the system would be restudied and it may be put back into the depot
plant modernization program at some future date. If this occurs, according to
AFLC officials, an economic analysis of the overall system would be prepared.
An AFLC official advised that the annual savings in material handling cost
projected for the plating shop could be realized only if both increments of the
proposed depot aircraft overhaul facility are funded and constructed so that
the plating shop could be tied into the overall material handling system.
The investigative staff is of the opinion that the $84,644 in annual recurring
savings in material handling costs attributed by the AFLC to the plating shop
building in the economic analysis is more properly attributable to the overall
mechanized material handling system and should be included in an economic
analysis of that system. Also, the savings may never be realized since there is
no assurance at this time that the overall mechanized material handling sys-
tem will ever be included in the depot plant modernization program and pur-
chased, or that both increments of the overhaul facility will be funded and con-
structed. If the projected savings in material handling cost were not included
in the economic analysis for the proposed plating shop, the projected savings
during the 25-year economic life of the proposed facility, adjusted to present
value, would be $2,992,605, and would reduce the savings/investment ratio from
1.03 to 0.85.
186
AIR FORCE STUDY ON MC CLELLAN DEPOT AIRCRAFT OVERHAUL FACILITY
Mr. SIKEs. In addition to that, the Air Force has recently completed
and forwarded to the committee a study on the depot aircraft over-
haul facility at McClellan which the committee requested last year.
That will also be put in the record unless there is objection.
[The study follows:]
187
Study and Justification for McClellan
Depot Aircraft Overhaul Facility
The following information supports the $7.8 million first
increment (authorized in FY 73) of the Depot Aircraft Overhaul
Facility (total cost $13 million) proposed for McClellan AFB,
California.
JUSTIFICATION: Aircraft support shops are presently located in
fourteen buildings scattered throughout the industrial complex;
some far from the aircraft repair lines. This necessitates dupli-
cation of equipment, materials and manpower, as well as excessive
transportation and extended flow times, making it difficult to meet
aircraft repair schedules. In addition, modern repair techniques,
equipment and mechanical handling systems cannot be used due to
facility limitations. Upon completion of the proposed project,
reduced flow times, enhanced worker productivity, and increased
reliability of work performed will increase this depot's ability
to respond to forces in the field. This increased response is
particularly needed to provide the capability to rapidly and effec-
tively support mobilization if required by national emergencies.
These same characteristics will also significantly reduce normal
operating costs so that proposed investment costs wIT--E rapid Ty
amortized.
As directed by Congress, a detailed study has been accomplished
which fully substantiates the need and scope of this facility.
STUDY FINDINGS:
Workload: A thorough analysis of workload requirements shows that
the long term workload for McClellan AFB will remain at the 7 to 8.5
million manhour level through the foreseeable future. This deter-
mination was made as part of a larger analysis which was the basis
for Air Force implementation of the TechnOlogy Repair Center concept.
Programmed workloads support the need to continue depot moderniza-
tion at McClellan AFB.
Capability: The experience and quality workmanship of McClellan AFB
in maintaining an advanced fighter-type technical competence,
engineering expertise, and industrial resource capability is impor-
tant to the Air Force. In addition, the Sacramento area provides
about one-third of the total Air Force depot hire capability which
would be critically needed to support mobilization. In contrast
with this background of personnel attributes the current facility
posture is very mixed ranging from excellent to inadequate.
Modernization of the inadequate portion of the physical plant is
needed to obtain required economic and response capabilities.
Present Conditions of Facilities: The Aircraft Repair Lines at
McClellan are located in adequate, functional hi-bay facilities
that are ideally suited and utilized for the overhaul and repair of
fighter type aircraft. In contrast, the supporting functions that
are a vital element in the timely and efficient production in these
aircraft lines are scattered throughout the base in functionally
inadequate and often deteriorated facilities. These functions,
some of which are duplicated in various areas, are as much as one
and one-half miles from the aircraft repair lines causing excessive
transportation costs and extended flow time. The scattering of
functions also present span of control problems. The duplication
of functions such as machine shops, welding shops, paint shops,
etc., made necessary by widely scattered operations, have resulted
in duplication of equipment, manpower, space, supervisory and sup-
port personnel, and material station banks. The functional
inadequacy of facilities limits worker productivity and the use of
188
modern repair equipment and procedures.
By locating the support shops in a single building in close
proximity to the aircraft repair lines, the project siting will
substantially reduce the requirement for transportation equipment
(i.e., pick-ups, tugs, hi-lifts), equipment operators, dispatchers,
parts tracers, materials and material station banks. It will reduce
component routed-flow time by as much as 60% which will increase
responsiveness accordingly. In addition, it will provide for better
management and control.
Required Scope for the First Increment of the Depot Aircraft Over-
haul Facility: The present depot maintenance shops involved in the
proposed project are now housed in fourteen widely scattered
buildings with ,317,650 SF. The shops in this space are to support
manufacturing and repair type functions. This commonality provides
an ideal situation for accomplishing these closely related functions
in one facility, minimizing duplication and the routed flow of
parts. The relocation of these shops into one facility results in
257,796 SF of space being returned to the Base for disposal.
The new facility requires less space than the present shops
(i.e., 317,650 SF vs 276,000 SF) since it will be more efficient.
Similar shops requiring related skills will be located adjacent to
each other maximizing utilization of space and equipment.
Position within Modernization Program: The first increment of the
Depot A/C Overhaul Facility is the keystone to continuing the
modernization of the maintenance complex at McClellan AFB. Follow-
ing a hydraulic shop (provided in the FY 70 MCP), this facility
provides the next step in developing a totally modern physical plant
for aircraft overhaul at this depot. This basic project should be
approved before most follow-on modernization can be programmed at
this installation.
Quantifiable Benefits: The quantifiable benefits are as follows:
a. Manpower reduction of 164 personnel at a recurring annual
savings of $2.231 million.
b. The consolidation of functions from 14 scattered ineffi-
cient facilities into one concise, efficiently laid out facility.
U. The release and disposal of 15 portable and 14 semi-
permanent buildings with a net floor space of 257,796 SF (some from
secondary moves).
d. The total space occupied by the Maintenance function at
McClellan AFB will be reduced by approximately 100,000 SF.
e. Significant savings in flow times and travel are projected
such as:
(1) A reduction in average flow time from 22 to 18J days -
based on 5082 items in the Generator Federal Supply Class (6115).
(2) A reduction in average flow time-from 41 to 23 days in
the Armament Shop - based on 2076 items in Pylons (FSC 1560).
(3) A reduction in average flow of one day for the F-111
aircraft from 52 to 51 days - based on 190 aircraft per year and 251
work days per year the F-111 operational fleet will be increased by
.75 aircraft.
189
Intangible Benefits: In addition to quantifiable benefits, the pro-
ject will provide intangible benefits, such as; 1) improved quality
of work performed resulting in improved weapons systems in the field,
2) reduced risk to personnel and material due to safer worker areas
and reduced handling, 3) better management due to a reduced span of
control, 4) benefits to be obtained from secondary moves made possi-
ble by releasing space adequate for the functions to be accommodated,
and 5) an improved worker atmosphere.
Economic Analysis: The study includes the recalculation of economic
benefits to be derived from investment in this facility using House
Appropriations Committee Investigative Staff approved methodology.
Technology Repair Center workload realignments are taken into
account in this recalculation. In addition to the personnel benefits
enumerated above, the economic analysis identifies a one-time savings
of $548,027. The savings/investment ratio for the first increment
investment of $7,798,000 is 3.07.
Conclusion: At the direction of the Congress specific justifica-
tions, including workloads, for the Depot Aircraft Overhaul
Facility have been reviewed and the results validate the need to con-
tinue modernizing the Depot Industrial Complex at McClellan AFB
through the provision of this facility. The depot maintenance capa-
bility at McClellan must be modernized and upgraded to produce needed
responsiveness to operational units in the field and mobilization.
In addition, savings to be obtained from this project are sufficient
alone to warrant the investment. In summary, the Air Force concludes
that there is a valid requirement which should be funded as soon as
practicable to obtain maximum benefits.
Mr. SIKEs. While the Air Force recommends that we proceed with
construction of the facility the surveys and investigation staff does not
so recommend. Has the Air Force had an opportunity to study the
staff report?
Colonel MORROW. No, sir; we have not.
Mr. SIKES. We would like to have your comments on the report when
you have had an opportunity to see it. Of course, we reserve the right
to have the surveys 'and investigations staff comment on your rebuttal.
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
AIR FORCE REVIEW OF HAC STUDY ON MCCLELLAN CONSTRUCTION
The Air Force has reviewed the report entitled, "Report to the Committee on
Appropriations. U.S. House of Representatives on the Depot Repair Facilities
Proposed for McClellan AFB, Sacramento, Calif." We are pleased to note that the
report does not impugn the justification of McClellan DPMP projects which we
feel implies credit to both the DOD process of review/approval and on the inves-
tigators themselves.
The directive was very broad and general and the investigation and the report
covered the directive in a like manner. Many areas pertaining to depot main-
tenance and facility programing were covered and consequently within the time
allotted none were examined in finite detail. We believe the investigators share
this opinion.
The workload programing decision which drew the greatest comment was the
Air Force plan to implement the Technology Repair Center (TRC) concept, al-
though the report stated that no detailed analysis in this concept was made. The
general rationale, timing, and advantages of TRC are described. The most sig-
nificant question raised by the investigators was the completeness of Air Force
planning at the time of the investigation. The planning which is still in process
concerns how (not what, when, and where) workloads will move during the im-
plementation. These details include: accommodation of personnel involved;
transportation arrangements; documentation of actions; and notifications. This
planning will be complete in August 1973. Based on the status of planning, at
the time of the investigation (May 1973), the report recommended funding be
deferred until Air Force affords the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
an opportunity to again review and approve the projects, taking into considera-
tion implementation of the TRC plan. Air Force has complied with this sug-
gestion. Since the kinds and quantities of workloads to be placed in each main-
tenance facility at all Air Force depots have been determined, Air Force provided
the information to OSD. The information embraced data provided under TRC
workloading using the automated Depot Maintenance Programing System which
was used to validate the projects as early as November 1972. The need is to
correct existing deficiencies which are not eliminated by the realignment of
workloads under the TRC concept. As a result, OSD continues to support the
validity of the depot maintenance projects submitted to the Congress.
Concerns expressed in the report regarding military construction programing
procedures and project justifications, it appears, result from the staff's under-
standable emphasis upon the visible, formal, programing process. In this con-
nection, most of the decisions as to project approval were based on many formal
and informal detailed exhanges of information between responsible officials at
different levels in AFLC, Hq USAF, OSD, and OMB. This allowed officials to
apply their knowledge of firm and proposed future courses of action long before
formal decisions were made. By this means five of the six projects originally
proposed for McClellan were deferred. Because of this thorough and intensive
review, only the most firm and justifiable projects are presented to the Congress
for appropriations.
In the development of TRC, Air Force made a "detailed analysis" requiring
a year and employing the best expertise available. The work includes over a
thousand pages of analysis, backup information, and computer data. OSD sup-
ports the concept because it reduces excess capacity, improves facility utiliza-
tion, and provides a responsive depot maintenance structure with maximum
economy.
In summary, the Air Force finds no critical data in the report not previously
considered which would invalidate OSD and Air Force approval of the depot
maintenance projects addressed. In compliance with the recommendation of the
investigative report, Air Force informally resubmitted justifying data to OSD,
including the effect of the TRC concept, on the projects before the committee.
OSD continues its support of maintenance projects in the depot plant moderniza-
tion program. Accordingly, in light of the above, the Air Force requests funding
approval for these projects.
Mr. SIKE. What is the status of the reprograming request for the
depot aircraft overhual facility ?
General REILY. Mr. Chairman, it is in the Office of Management
and Budget at the present time.
Is that correct, Mr. Lee ?
Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Is it needed at the scope requested last year ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir; it is needed at the scope requested last
year. Sir, if I may elaborate somewhat, basically all five bays of this
facility, programed in two increments, and the plating building are
needed at McClellan to effectively support the peace to war transition.
It is also essential that we maintain the technical competence and
engineering expertise in fighter-type aircraft at McClellan for the
same purpose.
The depot aircraft overhaul facility is the keystone to our modern-
izing the scattered substandard facilities that we have at McClellan.
We intend to keep McClellan at a substantial level of workload,
actually even above what it is at the present time. As a consequence
we will need the facility in question at the scope that has been portrayed
to the committee.
Mr. SIKHE. Can you be certain how the establishment of the TRCs
will affect your workload there?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir; we can. We have the details of the TRC
plan sufficiently clear that we know exactly what kind of work and
what quantities we are going to put into this facility. Sir, I would be
glad to provide the committee a detailed listing of not only each type
and quantity but also a detailed layout plan showing each piece of in-
dustrial plant equipment which will go into the new facilities.
Mr. SIEs. That will be useful. I would like to have that for the
record.
[The information follows:]
TRC AFFECT ON MOCCLELLAN WORKLOAD
A complete listing of all equipment and detailed building layout will be made
available to the subcommittee staff. The material is very volumin, is.
Mr. SIKES. The investigations staff was told by the SMAMA officials
that net projected cost savings shown in the economic analysis could
be effected by the realinement of maintenance workloads under the
TRC concept. This relates to the first increment of this depot over-
haul project, so that indicates that there are workloads which will be
changing in this facility as a result of the TRC concept.
It would also indicate that you perhaps should revise the economic
analysis if you haven't already done so to reflect the changed work-
loads and changing savings as a result of the changed workload.
Have you done this and will you provide it for the committee ?
20-632 0 - 73 - 13
Colonel MoRRow. Essentially it has been done. There are some final
details that are still being prepared at the present time to make it in
presentable fashion. The savings/investment ratio of about 3.07-to-1
we anticipate will remain fairly well intact.
Mr. SIXES. You have examined the workloads for this first incre-
ment of facilities so that you know it is required under the TRC
concept?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir; we have.
Mr. SIRES. What is the computed savings/investment ratio for
this facility ?
Colonel MoRRow. Slightly over 3-to-1, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
REVISION OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TRC CONCEPT
The savings/investment ratio of 3.07-to-1 has been confirmed.
Mr. SIKES. You have got a plan of this facility which you can go
over now, or later with our staff, to show exactly which workloads
will be performed in which areas of this facility ?
[The information follows:]
PLAN FOR MCCLELLAN DEPOT AIRCRAFT OVERHAUL FACILITY
A plan is available and will be provided to the staff upon short notice. Since
this facility is designed for general purpose type work, it is extremely adaptable
to changes in workload. A large portion of the space is for work benches which
can easily be shifted around in response to even daily changes in workloads.
AIRCRAFT REPAIR COMPLEX
Mr. SIRES. As I understand it, this facility is the second increment
of four of a single complex into which you would consolidate aircraft
repair functions at this base. Is that right ?
Colonel MORROw. Yes, sir; the four projects are: First, 'a hydraulic
shop which the committee approved in the fiscal 1970 MCP, then the
first and second increments of this depot aircraft overhaul shop, and
finally, the metal processing shop which is before the committee at
this time.
Mr. SIXES. Could you show the location of those three facilities,
the proposed locations ?
Colonel MANSPERGER. The fiscal year 1970 hydraulic shop, the first
increment, three bay, second increment, two bay, and the plating shop
are planned to be located in a line at this location. Nearby is the major
aircraft overhaul complex.
Mr. SIKES. You are also planning a second increment to the depot
overhaul facility ?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir; we are.
Mr. SIXES. Where will that fit into the complex ?
Colonel MoRRow. Right here, sir.
Mr. SIKES. How can you scope the size of this facility until the im-
pact of the TRC implementation has been analyzed ?
Colonel MoRRow. We think we have analyzed it sufficiently well so
we are pretty sure of the scope of it. However, we are presently re-
validating and verifying the actual scope of the second increment for
submission to the committee in a later year.
Mr. SIKES. When will you complete that revalidation ?
Colonel MORROw. By the end of July we should have it completely
revalidated.
Mr. SIRES. Would you provide that information to the committee?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
DEPOT A/C OVERHAUL MCCLELLAN IMPACT OF TRC ON SCOPE
The information will be provided to the committee as soon as it becomes
available.
SMALL SAVINGS FROM WEAPONS SYTEMS COMPONENTS PLATING SHOPS
Mr. SIgES. You are requesting a weapons systems components plat-
ing shop at a cost of $2,480,000. How is this function performed at the
current time ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, we are presently doing the plating work, the
plating and the etching and cleaning that is necessary for the metal
that is treated there, in a substandard building that lacks adequate
vapor, dust, and other environmental control. It is inadequate and
substandard.
Mr. SIKES. How does this shop tie in with the others that we have
discussed ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, this shop will be located on the end of the other
three projects which are in a line. You can see they are all placed ad-
jacent to each other and the plating shop is in blue right here
[indicating].
Mr. SIKES. Will there be a mechanized materials handling system
between these facilities?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir; there will be.
Mr. SIKES. Provide for the record the economic analysis of this
project.
[The information follows:]
*.OATS 2. ,I CAL YE*s I5 DEPARYMONT 4. 5HSTALLATIO5
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 JAN 1973 1974 (Continued AF = McCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
. PEoJECT Num.En I. PROECTriYLE
403-74-107 211-15A METAL PROCESSING
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A 65,000 SF modern depot aircraft plating shop with downdraft ventilation to replace an outdated, remotely
located facility (5ldg 666 - 44,280 SF1.
2. PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Reduced preventive maintenance, improved workforce productivity as a result of consolidating and
modernizing metal processing techniques and reduced transportation costs will result in one-time
savings of over $1,846,000 and an annual savings of nearly $285,000.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A
1. INVESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost
b, Supporting Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e, Other Cost
f. Total Costs
2. VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3. NET INVESTMENT
4. PRESENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
5. PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
6. P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
7. SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
$1,963,000
517,000
861,000
233,870
30,000
$3,604,870
r0-
$3,604,870
$1,627,327
428,593
1,199,373
233,870
23,640
3,512,803
-0-
$3,512,803
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
ANNUAL
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED SAVINGS
a, Ciyilian $867,395 $624,979 $ 242,414
b. Military - N/A
c, Other c N/A
2. OPERATING
a, Materials $ 29,658 $ 6,911 $ 22,747
b. Utilities 15,407 19,274 (3,867)
c. Maintenance & Repair 31,746 17,647 14,099
d. Other - Transportation 9,366 -0- 9,366
3. OVERERAD (No Changel
4, TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 284,759
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS $2,712,045
5. ONE-TIME SAVINGS $1,846,371
Sa. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIME SAVINGS $1,891,827
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BODI $4,603,872
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR) $3,627,851
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 YEARS DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A 0.788
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD1 FY-76
)O CA coIijon f1 Ut015M Lt4s No7 be--' ad.j1USI 4e(/ecl woi-/i-/oac/
CGt~,GA ) c va- Y.-0 TRE C l-ea( DIVA 1w5
DD, FOR.1391c -......E.... II .....OET..
Pa.g N. 18.11
REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
GPO : I| . O .... 14
Mr. SIKES. The savings/investment ratio for the plating shop is
computed at 1.03, which is not very impressive. Is this saving based
on inclusion of a materials handling system in this facility and
those adjacent to it ?
Colonel MoRRow. Sir, it is based on the mechanized materials
handling that will be associated with the plating shop itself. It is
not based upon the mechanized materials handling system that would
be serving the total combined facilities complex.
Mr. SixEs. What is the necessity for the facility when the savings/
investment ratio is so low ?
Colonel MORRow. Sir, we are presently in an inadequate situation.
We are precluded from meeting Occupational Safety and Health Act
standards. We are in a very inefficient method of operation and we
do not have enough space there to accommodate large enough tanks
to accomplish the titanium etching that is necessary for some of the
large sections of the wing panels on the F-111.
It is a question of necessity. The project will pay for itself. The
inclusion of the mechanized materials handling into it brought the
savings/investment ratio down to 1.03-to-1. If we were to take that
out, of course the facility by itself would have a higher payback but we
would not realize the ultimate efficiency for the plating shop.
Mr. NICHOLAS. When I was out there and was shown the plans for
this facility one of the reasons for putting all these buildings to-
gether was so that the entire facility could be served by a single mate-
rials handling system. I gathered that a great deal of the increased
efficiency was to come from this materials handling system which
would eliminate people, trucks, and so forth.
Now, according to the investigations staff report, the Air Force
says that it can't justify this overall materials handling system for
the four buildings in the complex and the Air Force Logistics Com-
mand or SMAMA-I can't remember which--says they have taken
this project out of their long-range program. Is this correct?
Colonel MORRow. Sir, first of all, the mechanized materials handling,
that is incidental to the plating shop is still going in. The other mate-
rials handling system to serve the whole complex, when it first was pre-
sented to the Air Force was for an exceptionally complex and costly
system. We do need something similar to this. We need a system but
we have sent it back to McClellan for an additional analysis to see
whether it can be simplified and the cost reduced.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Meanwhile this is not in your-
Colonel MORROW. No, sir, it is not there. It is not necessary, not es-
sential. It will be justified on its own basis. We project that there will
be a justification for such -a system, maybe not at the scope it was orig-
inally presented to the Air Force.
Mr. NICHOLAS. According to our investigations staff report, and I
wish you would discuss this with them and work over the notes, the
materials handling system in the plating shop would tie in with this
overall materials handling system. It probably would be to some ex-
tent eliminated or reduced in the plating shop if the big system doesn't
go. They compute that if you take that materials handling system out
of the plating shop the savings investment ratio goes down to .85.
Colonel MORRow. Sir, the general handling system will be justified.
on its own merits. It will produce its own savings. It would not reduce
the savings investment ratio of the plating shop itself.
LOCATION OF PLATING SHOP
Mr. PATTEN. If the second increment of the depot aircraft overhaul
facility doesn't materialize where will you locate the planting shop ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, we would locate the plating shop where it is
now planned. We would still desire that it be placed here in close
proximity to the other shops that it so closely supports.
Mr. PATTEN. IS there much noise from this plating shop ?
Colonel MORROw. Noise is not a particular problem. Primarily it is
toxicity and corrosive effect of fumes that are exhausted. One of the
reasons for building a new plating shop is to provide a downdraft ven-
tilation system, equipped with scrubbers, that will remove pollutants
and toxic properties of the fumes before they are exhausted. The sys-
tem will also provide greater protection for personnel working in the
facility.
Mr. PATTEN. You just blow it outside; right ?
Colonel MORROW. It will eventually be exhausted outside only after
it has been scrubbed for all pollutants. That is one of the reasons for
getting the new facility.
Mr. PATTEN. If your reanalysis of the second phase of the aircraft
facility there indicates that it doesn't need to be scoped at the same
size and you go ahead and build the plating shop at its presently
planned location, won't this constrict the manner in which you can
plan for the second increment of the aircraft repair facility ?
If in fact there is no second increment of that facility won't the
plating shop be in the wrong place for establishing any integrated
materials handling system.
Colonel MORROW. Let me say first we certainly plan on having a sec-
ond increment. We feel it is essential because we are vacating some 13
scattered separate buildings by building both of these increments.
We will still be in 'about some six scattered locations if we don't
get the second increment. The scope of the second increment may be
somewhat less than the sum of the scopes of the six individual fa-
cilities. This is because the new facility will permit a more economic
and efficient functional layout of activities.
We feel the plating shop would still be appropriately placed.
Mr. PATTEN. Your workload might or might not affect physical size,
although it easily could. It also might affect the justification for the
project.
The savings which you anticipate now might well change because of
the different workload and so forth. So, the project might then become
less urgent. If you find it slips to the 1978 program, there you will be
with the plating shop 200 yards away.
Colonel MORRow. Since we know what is going into McClellan at
the present time, we already know what is going into the second incre-
ment as well as the first, there is no doubt in our minds of what is
needed.
What we are doing at the present time, as I mentioned to you, is we
are reverifying, having Sacramento reprepare the necessary documen-
tation. We have' already gone through it with the engineers and we
are convinced in our own minds through our automated utilization sys-
tem that the requirement will remain substantially intact.
However, the manual validation and documentation, is following
and we will have that in July.
Mr. PATTEN. What would be the result of deferring this project for a
year?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, if we defer the first increment, we would have
to remain in our present 13 scattered locations, and continue a sub-
standard operation. If we defer the second increment we would still
be in some six scattered locations. We would be unable to consolidate
and realize all the benefits are confident will accrue.
Mr. PATrEN. You are not referring to the plating shop particularly ?
What would be the result of deferring the depot aircraft overhaul
facility until you have had a real chance to analyze your workload at
McClellan as a result of the TRC implementation and the fiscal year
1975 budget level ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, my answer earlier was addressed toward this
particular project.
Mr. PATTEN. You are telling me.
-Colonel. Mo uow. W-e do not see any additional guidance coming out
that is going to change the justification and the workload we already
project into there. The consequence of deferring would simply mean
that we would remain less efficient and less economical.
Mr. PATTEN. Let us go back to just the plating shop.
Colonel Mounow. Similar with the plating shop, sir, the plating
shop itself is in a very deteriorated condition. We would have to con-
tinue operating in the plating shop with make-do and makeshift
means.
For instance, we have to disassemble some of the parts because we
are unable to put tanks large enough in there to take some of the wing
panel sections. We have to disassemble and put them in there a piece at
a time and then match them up later after we get them out.
We would have to continue this operation which is very inefficient.
Mr. PATTEN. What savings would you forgo in that year? What
would be the cost or the savings in that year? Could you provide that
for the record?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, I can. I will provide it for the record.
[The information follows:]
EcoNoMIcs OF MC LELLAN PLATING SHOP
Annual tangible savings which will be delayed include :
Personnel -------------------------------------------------$242, 214
Operating ----------------------------------- ------ 42, 545
Total annual savings loss--------------------------------284, 759
Excluding annual tangible recurring savings, inflation will increase acquisition
costs for construction and equipment by 5 percent to 7 percent ($220,000). In
addition to tangible savings which will be lost, there are many intangible consid-
erations. For example, production losses due to inadequate plating tank sizes
and congested routed item flow makes production schedules almost impossible
to meet. This lack of response would be a particular handicap if mobilization
were required. New processing methods being used today by aircraft developers
require that these same new techniques be added to our plating facilities; for
example, chemical milling. Without these new processes, inefficient makeshift
operations try to simulate these required methods at additional costs and reduced
quality of work performed. Unsatisfactory pollution and environmental condi-
tions affecting personnel health and safety will continue at an unquantifiable
cost.
Colonel MORROW. We have essentially two things, recurring costs,
annual costs that we would lose, plus one time cost avoidance that we
would probably lose.
Mr. PATrEN. I have one more overall question.
Do you have an encroachment problem at McClellan ?
'General REILLY. Mr. Jackson or Colonel Reed, whoever wants to
address it.
Mr. JONKERS. I don't have the answer.
Colonel REED. There are some considerations of urban encroach-
ment. However, the type air mission that we have had there, flying
mission, primarily 130 type activities and EC-121's, can continue to
operate in spite of the urban encroachment.
We have experienced encroachment and we have had plans and dis-
cussions with the community trying to forego any serious future
problems.
Mr. PATrEN. Any questions ?
ECONOMIC ANALYSES
Mr. LONG. The savings/investment ratio, it would seem, practically
always comes out less favorable than planned. Is that right?
Colonel MoRRow. Sir, we don't believe so. As a consequence of this
committee's and your particular insistence, Dr. Long, in earlier years
we have changed our methodology and made it much more conserva-
tive.
Earlier in the hearings we testified that we have incorporated
methodology changes that do decrease our savings/investment ratio,
our stated claims, but we would anticipate still achieving the same
benefits that we would have even without the restatement.
Mr. LONG. Well, how long has this new system been in effect ?
Colonel MoRRow. We have just introduced it this year, for the fiscal
1974 budget.
Mr. LONG. How bad were your other systems?
Colonel MORRow. Not very. These methodology changes reduced our
estimated projected savings by a little less than 10 percent, sir.
Mr. LONG. What about your investment? Doesn't your investment
usually turn out to be much greater because of cost overruns and all?
Colonel MORROw. No, sir; the changes that we made were primarily
things such as discounting current year dollars that we were project-
ing.
We had in the past discounted only to the year of construction and
by backing it up another year, as you know, sir, we would actually de-
crease the value in current year dollars of our savings but-
Mr. LONG. I am not talking about inflation now. I am talking about
the increase in construction costs.
Colonel MORROW. No, sir, our costs have not increased. Our savings
have decreased somewhat, by slightly less than 10 percent.
Mr. LONG. Why wouldn't your investment costs go un ? Don't most
of these things end un costing more than you had planned ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, I defer to General Reilly. That question is on
construction costs.
General REILLY. Our general cost experience has been very good, Dr.
Long. I think the wisdom in building larre nroiects is borne out by
the very favorable bids that we have had. On the average our costs
have been below the programed amount for depot modernization
projects.
Mr. LONG. Well, what is considered in business to be a good savings/
investment ratio ? Have you looked into business firms to see how they
operate ?
They operate much more conservatively than this, don't they?
Colonel MORRow. Sir, I don't know. I don't know if they use the
term savings/investment ratio.
Mr. LONG. They have some kind of ratio, cost/benefit ratio, or what
have you. Any business would be insane to make an investment with-
out getting some idea of what their return was going to be, and that
is what we are talking about.
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir. I think primarily they look to amortize
their investments within a 3- to 5-year period.
Mr. LONG. What do we do?
Colonel MORROW. On the average, sir, about 2.7. We have some
projects that go over 3 years and some that are quite substantially
less than 3 years.
Mr. LONG. Do you figure on getting the whole benefit back in 3
years?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. The whole cost back in 3 years?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir. We would amortize the total investmen'
:ost.
Mr. LONG. Well, would a 3-to-1 ratio do that, 3 years?
Colonel MORROw. Yes, sir, it would.
Mr. LONG. I am not quite sure I follow that.
Colonel MORRow. Sir, for amortization purposes we actually use
discounted dollars. A 3-to-1 savings/investment ratio would actually
give us less than a 3-year amortization time period.
As you know, we discount very heavily, at a 10 percent annual
rate, to indicate our savings, to portray our savings and bring them
up to current year dollars, so this reduces our stated claims for savings
quite substantially.
Mr. LONG. So your savings figure is already a heavily discounted
figure?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir, it is, at a 10 percent annual rate.
Mr. LONG. When you make a 3-to-1 savings/investment ratio, how
fast do you figure on getting the money back?
Colonel MORROW. It would be less than 3 years. I am not quite that
fa-t in arithmetic.
Mr. LONG. The two 3's have nothing to do with each other?
Colonel MORROW. No, sir, they don't.
Mr. LONG. Of course, that is awfully good if you can get your
whole investment back in 3 years.
Colonel MoRRow. On the average this is what we are anticipating
and we have every expectation of doing that. We have some that go
over this, that we need for other purposes, but some go quite a bit
under.
Mr. LONG. I wish you could explain that to me a little more con-
vincingly in terms of a specific project. I hear what you say, but some-
how I can't get my teeth into it.
Colonel MORROW. Sir, our economic analysis is to essentially postu-
late reasonable alternatives and cost amounts, so if we are already do-
200
ing the particular work we take the cost of doing that and continu-
ing, doing that kind of work in the way in which we are doing it. We
portray that one way. If we have to do things like make some tem-
porary repairs in order to shore up the roof, we put that into the cost
of continuing operation.
We contrast this cost of continuing operation to the capital invest-
ment plus the other costs of operating under our proposal and then
we take the difference and we discount it on the basis of 10 percent
annually to bring the savings back to current year dollars.
Mr. LONG. But your savings then are to some extent hypothetical,
based on the theory of what it would have cost you to keep on oper-
ating this the old way.
Colonel MORROw. The projections, sir, are theory in a sense perhaps,
but they are based on our historical evidence, historical fact.
Mr. LONG. Have you ever had any management people come in
from business and tell you whether you are doing things in an ap-
proved fashion as far as business is concerned ? Have they approved
your guidelines and your ratios and all that ?
Colonel MORROw. Yes, sir, we did, at the outset.
Mr. LONG. Who did that for you?
Colonel MoRRow. It was Tate Technology.
Mr. LONG. Tate Technology ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Is that a Maryland firm?
Colonel MORRow. I believe so, sir. I think they have changed their
name, Tate Industries, I believe; or something of this sort, but they
produced our first depot plant modernization program, package. They
were under contract to the Air Force. They used both their private
sector of industry expertise as well as experience gained doing similar
work for the Navy and applied that methodology to developing our
first program.
Mr. LONG. What about the GAO ? Have they ever taken a look at
these savings/investment ratios and commented on them?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir. Both your investigative staff and the
GAO have looked at our projects on an individual basis. The GAO at
the present time, sir, is investigating on their own, primarily looking
at the Federal sector for capital investment to reduce operating cost.
Mr. Morris and some of his people have been out to some of our
AMA's. They were briefed on our depot plant modernization about
3 months ago and they seemed to be very pleased with it, with the
approach that we were taking.
Mr. LONG. That is subjective. Has the GAO ever commented on your
guidelines, on your system of operation ?
Colonel MoRRow. I don't know that the GAO has, sir. I know that
your staff investigators have.
Mr. LONG. They have ?
Colonel MORRow. Yes, sir; they have.
Mr. LONG. I wonder if you would look into it and put in the record
exactly who has done this and where they have commented on it?
Would you?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
OOMMENTS ON SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIOS
Your investigative staff made three reports on the adequacy of estimated cost
savings used in support of facilities requested for modernization at Department
of Defense depots that were included in the fiscal year 1973 military construction
budget request. These reports were inserted in the fiscal year 1973 hearings
published for this subcommittee. The reports specifically referred to the use of
the savings-investment ratio in paragraph III, "Use of Economic Analysis as a
Tool in Decisionmaking." The report substantiated the adequacy of the use of
a savings-investment ratio as an 'appropriate economic indicator.
Also GAO case 93011 references as an advantage of the depot plant moderniza-
tion program (DPMP) the identification of savings to investment ratio for each
project. This review by the GAO was in conjunction with the joint project on
Federal productivity sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget, the Civil
Service Commission, and the GAO. The GAO team observations were made on
their closing conference after a review of the DPMP at Tinker Air Force Base in
February-March 1973.
PLATING SHOP
Mr. LONG. This 1.03 seems to be to me not a very happy ratio. Three
to one I can understand, but 1.03 seems to me to be very marginal,
especially when the staff looks into it, makes their adjustments, and
comes down to 0.85.
How do you happen to approve a project where you are so close to
breaking even on it ?
Colonel MORROW. The 0.85 would not decrease the 1-to-1 ratio.
Mr. LONG. I understand the questioning here says 0.85.
Colonel MORRow. That was apparently made under a misunderstand-
ing that we were going to justify an external mechanized materials
handling system on the basis of this project. That system will be jus-
tified on its own merits. The ratio that exists for this particular
facility is 1.03 to 1. We like a higher ratio also.
In this particular case there is a plating shop which should be re-
placed because of the conditions that we have there, the toxicity of the
fumes, the corrosive aspects, the lack of adequate fume exhaustion. It
has an old type overhead-
Mr. LONG. I understand, but why is there such a low ratio?
Colonel MORROW. In these cases, sir, it is very difficult to pin down
hard, factual, quantitative savings.
Mr. LONG. When you get something that is a matter of health, does
that go into your savings investment ratio ?
Colonel MORROW. No, sir, we are unable to quantify that. For in-
stance, sir, one of the factors that we removed from our savings in-
vestment ratios was the reduced insurance premiums. We had claimed
this in the past and the investigative staff suggested we not do that
because the Government does not pay insurance premiums.
We were trying to accommodate this particular point at the time.
General REILLY. Colonel Morrow, does not the new facility incor-
porate more extensive processes for meeting our environmental pro-
tection requirements than the old facilities ?
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir, without question. All the fumes from all
the various solutions, and there are many different kinds, will be
evacuated in a downdraft manner and pass through fume scrubbers
and all the fumes will be removed.
Mr. LONG. I have used up quite a bit of time. I wanted to ask you
some questions on encroachment, but perhaps we can talk about that
later on.
ECONOMIC LIFE
Mr. DAVIS. On this 25-year recovery period, is that a matter of
statute, or is that Defense Department regulations? How was that
arrived at?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir; it is a Defense Department instruction
that stipulates that for computing financial benefits, the economic life
of equipment is 10 years and 25 years for facilities. We can only claim
savings throughout that period and discount it back to the current
year dollars.
One point, sir I might mention is, as was brought out the other
day, that we had been claiming a residual value of an investment at
the end of 25 years and the investigators agreed that they could look
at a building 26 years old and realize that it did have residual value
but they said it was inappropriate for us to claim this and put this
on the credit side. We have to zero it out at the end of 25 years. So this
is the way we develop our savings to investment ratio.
Mr. PATTEN. The Internal Revenue Service won't let you write off
your fire proof, fire resistant buildings in 25 years, you know. They
wouldn't let you. I had a big case on that. We put up a 10-story build-
ing, fire proof and fire resistant, and we wanted to write it off on a 25-
year basis.
We would have saved income tax by a quicker write off. We were
making a lot of money. They made us use 40 years. To tell the truth
that 'building today is 40 years old and it is like brand new. That was
well built in the depression and the finest of everything went into it
and there isn't a piece of wood in the whole building, all brass fixtures
on doors and all, all metal. It has been through all kinds of weather.
Colonel MoRRow. If we were able to take the economic life to 40
years it would increase our savings benefit ratio.
Mr. DAVIS. I would think that this type of construction that we are
talking about here, as a practical matter certainly, would be antici-
pated to have a useful life much beyond 25 years.
Colonel MORROW. Yes, sir; without question, sir.
Mr. DAVIs. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS-PLATING SHOP
Mr. PATTEN. I do think that on the benefits here, regardless of the
1.03, it is obvious you feel in your heart that for the morale of the
workers, for their health, for their comfort, and for a lot of other
reasons you should proceed with this improvement. I should think
if you are adding something to the record you ought to embellish
some of the factors other than money.
In our Labor-HEW committee we are hearing a tremendous amount
about compensation for these toxic effects on the health of workers
and they are building up some case. This is going to be a new ball game
for the chemical industry, for asphalt, and I could mention some of the
others, all the others. So that you have many other factors. Just say
203
as man to man that you feel you ought to do this for the people who
have to use the facility for -all the reasons other than the dollar, Gen-
eral, and I think you ought to do it.
They are making you toe the mark on air ,and water pollution all
the way through and you say you haven't shown any of those factors.
Colonel MORROW. No, sir, we don't cost them out.
Mr. PATTEN. YOU don't pay compensation. Well, I know industry
is going to be forced to take a new look at what these doctors are say-
ing is happening to these fellows working in a room full of dust, and
chemicals, and everything else. They are really pinning it down today.
They are going to make a lot of changes. So I think you ought to
embellish your report here with more than just a dollar sign if that is
what is motivating you to proceed with this new facility.
General REILLY. It is one of the motivating factors.
[Editor's note: The Air Force had no further comments.]
Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Patten.
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GA.
Mr. SIKES. Turn to Robins Air Force Base, in Georgia. Place page
33 in the record.
[The page follows:]
1D Das . --.-TP I mTALLATION
AF F 974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
AF -ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
4. cOaNo Or u*NM NT u INRTALtLATIO CON TML INn s. UTAT/COUNTRy
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND UHHZ GEORGIA
. TAT T...tn OF INITIAL occuPANCY a counTy (U.S.) 10. uwsanag aeT ONE MILE EAST OF WARNER
ACTIVE 1941 HOUSTON ROBINS GEORGIA EIGHTEEN MILES SOUTH
SOF MACN GEORGIA
I MiIO O AJ I F NCTIONe IL PERMANENT STUDENTS WETRTE
HEAVY BOMBARDMENT WING (STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND) PaoITNL PusLoST R oErcl II..ICOM D ceI IAN Olr E lN S SCOPE u bsUa cims.. TOTAL
(D (S (D e S) (4 o() h a)
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP (AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS A. L Jb 3'646 15 - 2 4 3 - 2517
SERVICE) LdU d tO A.rr 76, 797 3,764 15,17 - 1 32 1 4 3 1967
WARNER ROBINS AIR MATERIEL AREA DEPOT LAND ACiE LAN COST (10) IPOVEMENT (SO) TOTAL (I-)
AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND HEADQUARTERS L" s 7,055 217 166(L47 70
w Lcan A* o wasul[ 192 3
21*urr Aod. t(o a A irea nr 1S or so ttS 45608 2,908
1. ATurIte aoN NT AT I IAaryss a Excludes 30,4 Mobile Home pe _ 0
, N Au OlaTIoN RwoumTED IN Tw.P p RAnu 4,
A l TIerAT f ATonhIZATa ONi - A Fn / 0 13 00
T T RALT1OTAL (.e*** 2 i
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT RESIGNATION AUTHORIATON PROGRAM FUNDING ROGRAM
CODE O PROJECT TITLE P T OI COMMAND MEISUIRE COPE OST SCOPE IT aED
* a . (.A (mo
116-665 Depot Aircraft Run-up Facility I EA 2 240 2 240
211-11A Add to and Alter Aircraft Protective Coating Facility I SF 51,454 1,047 51,454 1,047
211-116 Add to and Alter Depot Aircraft Maintenance Hangars 1 SF 425,690 886 425,690 886
211-15B Alter Materials Analysis Facility 12 SF, 30,677 840 30,677 840
211-15E Alter Depot Aircraft Overhaul Facility I SF 306,000 1,352 306,000 1,352
811-14A Advanced Logistics System Utility Support I IS LS IS 503
TOTAL 4,868 4,868
DD , rTY ( SSIONw I
PA Nl 3
205
RoBINs AIR FORCE BASE
The fifth of the Air Force Logistics Command bases being considered is Robins
Air Force Base, located 18 miles south of Macon, Ga. The principal mission of
this base is to support the Headquarters of the Warner Robins Air Materiel area.
It also supports a Heavy Bombardment Wing of the Strategic Air Command;
the Headquarters of the Air Force Reserve Command; and a Mobile Communi-
cations Group of the Air Force Communications Service. This request is for six
projects amounting to $4,868,000.
The first project provides an aircraft runup facility for F-15 aircraft complete
with supporting facilities and foundations for the installation of sound suppres-
sion equipment. There are no facilities at this base for this type aircraft.
The second project will provide an addition to and alteration of the existing
aircraft protective coating facility. Painting cannot be accomplished in present
facility 28 percent of the time due to temperature and humidity tolerances being
exceeded.
The third project will add to and alter interior of maintenance hangars.
Adequate space and appurtenances are required to provide a central utility
system to which aircraft may be connected for overhaul rather than using many
pieces of AGE equipment which are noisy, produce noxious fumes, and take up
needed space.
The fourth project alters an existing materials analysis facility to provide
adequate size, proper functional configuration, and environmental control. Work-
loads have doubled since 1961.
The fifth project alters the interior of an existing depot aircraft overhaul
facility. Wooden structures have been erected within the aircraft overhaul and
modification facility and must be removed to provide adequate flow lines.
The last item will provide alternate electric power supply, air conditioning, and
associated utilities to support operation of advanced logistics system computer
equipment.
AFLC-ROBINS AFB, GA.--DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent complete
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Depot aircraft run-up facility.__ ---------- $19, 300 100
Add to and alter aircraft protective coating facility------------- -----------__ 71, 000 65
Add to and alter depot aircraft maintenance hangars___ 44, 400 100
Alter materials analysis facility.... 50,700 100
Alter depot aircraft overhaul facility.... 52,500 100
Advanced logistics system utility support ....- - - 24, 600 25
Mr. SIKES. The request is $4,868,000 for an addition to and altera-
tion of the aircraft protective coating facility, alteration of the aircraft
overhaul facility, and other items.
Which of these projects are depot plant modernization program
projects?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, all except the last item. Five of the
projects are for depot modernization.
SAVINGS FROM DEPOT MODERNIZATION PROJECTS AT ROBIN AFB
Mr. SIKES. How many of them can be justified by savings alone ?
Colonel MORROw. All, sir, excepting the aircraft runup facility.
Mr. SIKES. Provide for the record the summaries of the economic
evaluations for these projects.
[The information follows:]
I OAT 4. PIRCAL TEAS 5 DASE RNE INSTALLATION
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 an 1973 1974 (Coninue, AF ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
a PRJEc NumeER e. pROJecT TTLE
211-11A ADD TO AND ALTER AIRCRAFT PAINT FACILITY
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Provide controlled environment of Bldg 89 required for storing, mixing, applying, and curing of protective
finishes on C-130, C-141, and F-15 Aircraft.
2. PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Increased worker efficiency, centralized paint storage and mixing, and reduce rework and mater: al usage
with a resultant annual savings of $313,000.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
1. INVESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost (Includes 6% SIGH) $1,094,000
b. Supporting Facility Cost (Includes 6% SIOH) 6,000
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment 0
d. Design Cost (7% of a & b) 77,000
e. Other Cost 0
f. Total Costs 1,177,000
2. VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES $ 102,313
3. NET INVESTMENT $ 1,074,687
4. PRESENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost 906,924
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost 4,974
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment 0
d. Design Cost 77,000
e. .P.V. of Other Cost 0
f. Total P.V. of Investments 988,900
5. PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY $ 102,313
6. P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT $ 886,587
7. SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT
PROPOSED ANNI AZ, SAVINGS
a. Civilian $1,109,055 $948,091 (130,964
b. Military 0 0 0
c. Other 0 0 0
2. OPERATING
a. Materials 430,079 332,571 97,508
b. Flow Time 47,601 0 47,601
c. Maintenance & 7,080 0 7,080
Repairs of Equip
d. Other 0 0 0
3. OVERHEAD 0 0 0
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS 0 0 $ 313,153
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF
ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 2 982,469
5. ONE TIME SAVINGS 53,144
5a. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIME
SAVINGS 24,439
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD) $ 3 006,908
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR) $ 2 369,444
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 DISCOUNT FACTOR 10%
TABLE A .788
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY 1976
DL' rR13 1 sVASEI~RI s"" EIE OMN UMTA 40B. 1.
Page No. 16.4 -
Po aolo.al REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
DD, a.-1391c .evios OM... IS OBSO.E.
nfl . FISC AL YEAs jt YARYME 4. IEnSYAwLLAION
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 Jan 1973 1974 (conu AF ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
s. rCasJcTNuaMR I. PrnJacT TlLE
50 -74-101 211-116 ADD TO AND ALTER DEPOT MAINTENANCE HANG A
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENT
1. LISCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Install centralized utility system for depot level repair of C-130, C-141 and F-15 aircraft.
2. PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Increase functional effectiveness and improve facility utilization with resultant annual savings of
almost $380,000.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
1. I ESTMENT 1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED ANNU J SAVINGS
a. Primary Construction Cost (6% SIOH INCL.) $706,000 a. Civilian .$5,324,962 $4,969,965 $35 ,997
b. Supporting Facility Cost (6% SIOH INCL.) $180,000 b. Military N/A
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment 0 c. Other N/A
d. Design Cost (7% of above) $ 62,020 2. OPERATING
e. Other Cost 0
f Total Cost $948,020 a. Maint of Equip $67,715 $33,700 $3 ,015
b. Maint of System 0 $10,000 (1 1,000)
2. V.LUE OF EXISTING FACILITY C 3. OVERHEAD
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS $37 ,012
3. N3:T INVESTMENT $948,020 4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS $3,00 :,556
4. P:SENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS 5. ONE TIME SAVINGS $20 ,872
a P.V. of Primary Construction Cost $585,274 5a. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE TIME SAVINGS $20.,872
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost $149,220 6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD) $3,21 ,428
c P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment 0
d Design Cost $62,020 7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR) $2,53 ,393
e P.V. of Other Cost 0
f. Total P.V. of Investments $796,514 S. ECONOMIC LIFE 15 YEARS
5. P.V. OF EXISTING FACILITY 0
6. P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT $796,514 DISCOUNT FACTOR 10%
7. S;.VINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO 3 TABLE A 0,788
TABLE B 7.980
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) July 1, 1975 (FY-76:
DD cT..1391c ........- ...... o s:.......... REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL Pag.RN_ 15.5
LOG
. So t 2. c rE , MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA . 11, ,T"E.r . .S Lno
15 J. n 1972 1974 (Continued) AF ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
211-152 ALTER DEPOT AIRCRAFT OVERHAUL FACILITY
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. AESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Install environmental controls in two aircraft support shops and second floor, north extension; cons ;ruction of
personnel service centers; and alter low bay hangar space to provide adequate aircraft repair facili ies in
Building 125.
2. 'ROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Will increase functional effectiveness, eliminate substandard support facilities, reduce transportation.
allow for maximum facility flexibility, and update employee rest and break areas resulting in an annual
savings of over $400,000.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
1. NVESTMENT
;. Primary Construction Cost (SIGH @ 6% Incl.)
,. Supporting Facility Cost (SIGH @ 6% Incl.)
a. Initial Outfitting Equipment
1. Design Cost (7% of a + b above)
a. Other Cost
f. Total Costs
2. ALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3. 4ET INVESTMENT
4. 'RESENT VALUE (P V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
i. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
3. Design Cost
a. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
5. ?RESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
6. ?.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
7. SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
$1,395,000
58,000
0
101,710
0
1,554,710
$ 132,322
$1,422,388
$1,156,455
48,082
0
101,710
0
1,306,247
$ 132,322
$1,173,925
2.21
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED
a. Civilian $21,827,589 $21,420,349
b. Military
c. Other 16,700 11,026
2. OPERATING
a. Materials
b. Utilities
c. Maintenance & Repairs
d. Other
3. OVERHEAD
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS
5. ONE TIME SAVINGS
5a. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIME SAVINGS
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD)
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR)
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 15 YEARS DISCOUNT FACTOR 10%
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY 1976
DD :?~~01391c P5501555 500155 IS OBSOLETE. BEVISBD COMMAND SUBMITTAL P.g.Ns. 17.6
ANNt 'L SAVINGS
$4)7,240
5,674
0
0
0
0
0
$ 12,914
$3,:95,054
0
0
$3,:95,054
$2,)96,503
TABL A 0.788
TABI B 7.980
REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
Pge No. 17.6
cPo so.asi
DD, oM" 1391c V........... 1 E ....
[ .O AL Y[Aru t OS ATMSNT4. I0ALL Tle
1O5A JAN 1973 5. . I E MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA a
15 SANl1973
(Cntnu9W
[" P...,[GT Nuw"[a 1, PNOIECT TITL
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. )ESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Convert 22,277 SF in Building 165 to house equipment and personnel to accomplish increased laborator, workloads
in support of depot repair and worldwide prime responsibilities.
2. 'ROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Provide increased capability to test/analyze materials that affect the reliability of 50% of in-u;e weapon
systems. Make existing facility comparable with environmental control requirements of existing tast
equipment and analysis procedures.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A RSUMMAR 0 F nOET BE
1. :NVESTMENT
L. Primary Construction Cost (SIOH @ 6% Incl.) $
!. Supporting Facility Cost (SIOH @ 6% Incl.)
. Initial Outfitting Equipment, Costs Not In-
cluded in Line Item
-. Design Cost (7% of a above)
?. Other Costs
Total Costs
2. rALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3. IET INVESTMENT $
4. :'RESENT VALUE.(P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost $
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost $
. P.V. of Other Cost
. Total P.V. of Investments
5. _'RESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
6. ".V. OF NET INVESTMENT
7. .AVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
8. 'EARS TO AMORTIZE
1. PERSONNEL
839,000
0
0
58,730
76,435
974,165
N/A
974,165
695,531
0
0
58,730
60,231
814,492
N/A
814 492
.55 Years
PRESENT PROPOSED
a. Civilian N/A N/A
b. Military - N/A N/A N/A
c. Other - N/A N/A N/A
2. OPERATING
a. Improved Production Efficiency
3. OVERHEAD
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS
5. ONE TIME SAVINGS
5a. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE TIME SAVINGS
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD)
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR, 1974)
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 15 YEARS DISCOUNT FACTOR 10%
9. BENEFTCTAT. OCCTPAwY nA runn\ Pv76
9. BENFCTAT (lCTPANrV nh' fannn rv
SUL , 1 . 1 1C ........... 101 .. OBOLETE.
to
ANNUAL SAVINGS
N/ L
N/ 1
N/ L
$ 382,i53
$ 0
$ 382,i53
3,051, 76
0
0
$ 3,051,)76
$ 2,404,)58
TABLE A .788
TABLE B 7.980
mill ..........
--
"'"" '""
R F PROJECT BENFITS - FORMAT R
L
GPO 910.651
Page NI -
AIRCRAFT RUNUP FACILITY
Mr. SIRES. What is the justification for the other one ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, we simply don't have any other way to run
the aircraft up outside of a sound protection device. In the past we
ran up lower thrust engines out in the open on vacant taxiways and
runways. We can't do that with the F-15 aircraft. We have to tie it
drown and we would have to put some sort of a protective shield over it
to reduce the noise.
Mr. SIRES. What is the schedule of equipment delivery for the depot
aircraft runup facility ?
General REILLY. The sound suppressor equipment for the aircraft
runup facility at this location is scheduled for delivery in November
1974.
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
Mr. SIXEs. I would like to see on the map where these facilities will
be built.
Colonel MANSPERGER. Here is the aircraft runup facility, relatively
close to where the aircraft will be overhauled, but out far enough so
that we will not disturb too many people.
Mr. SIKES. What is the distance ?
Colonel MANSPERGER. The exact distance there I would have to esti-
mate. But our criteria for the aircraft runup facility sound suppres-
sor is that we can operate within 250 feet of a man in the open for
8 hours without running the risk of damaging his ears and within 500
feet of a closed facility without creating a disturbance more than a
normal shop/office.
Mr. SIKES. Now, you should have been able to read the scale and tell
me show far it is.
Colonel MANSPERGER. They covered up the scale right here, sir.
Mr. SIKES. All right.
Provide it for the record.
[The information follows:]
Distance from the run-up facility to maintenance overhaul facilities is approxi-
mately 3,400 feet.
Distance to fuel/defuel/fuel test facilities is 500-700 feet.
After leaving the overhaul facility, the aircraft must be refueled before it can
be run up. The run-up facility has been located adjacent to the fuel facilities for
this reason.
Mr. SIKEs. Where are the others located ?
Colonel MANSPERGER. The protective coating facility is right here
and the aircraft overhaul facility and hangar projects are right in this
area here. The materials analysis facility is right here.
PROJECTS RELATED TO F-15
Mr. SIKES. All right. Which of these projects are related to the main-
tenance of the F-15 ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, all will be some extent, is that cor-
rect, Colonel Morrow ?
Colonel MORROw. Yes, sir; they will all be employed with work from
the F-15 but there is only one dedicated to that aircraft and that is
the aircraft run-up facility. That is the only one solely dedicated to the
F-15 aircraft.
Mr. SIKES. Have you restudied the economics of assigning the F-15
overhaul to Robins ?
Colonel MORROW. No, sir, Mr. Chairman, we have not restudied the
economics. The F-15 has yet only about 40 percent been assigned. The
airframe is assigned to Warner-Robins. The engine is presently as-
signed to Kelly. The balance of the components will be assigned in ac-
cordance with the technology repair center concept.
The placement of the F-15 at Robins was based on its ability to
accommodate it at no additional cost, other than what would be entailed
elsewhere.
Mr. SIKES. When will the F-15s come into Robins for repair ?
Colonel MORRow. In fiscal 1975, sir.
Mr. SIKES. When will the bulk of the workload start ?
Colonel MoRRow. In fiscal 1977, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Then do you need these facilities now ?
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir, we need the facilities now to be ready for
the aircraft when it gets into the operational fleet in November of
this next year, 1974.
Mr. SIKES. One of your justification sheets says the base has no
fighter engine run-up facilities. How long has it been since Robins
repaired fighters ?
Colonel MoRRow. The late 1950's.
Mr. SIKES. I remember the testimony last year discussing the assign-
ment of the F-15 to Robins. I believe it was stated that Robins had the
capability to repair fighters and that this was taken into account in
assigning the workload here, but if you haven't repaired fighters
since-when? 1950?
Colonel MORRow. Late 1950's. 1958, I think was the last year they
had it.
Mr. SIgES. Does this capability still exist at Robins?
Colonel Moxmow. Yes, sir. The skills are comparatively similar to
those required for present workloads. I believe the question last year
related to F-15 airframe workload, which is completely alien to Robins
Air Force Base. In the past, Robins has been overhauling cargo air-
craft airframes.
Mr. SIKES. I think that was a discussion of putting it here versus
putting it in other bases where you had ongoing fighter repair work.
Colonel MoRRow. The only way we could put it at another location
would be to move an appropriate amount of work out of that location.
Robins could accommodate the workload and had previously accom-
modated fighter type aircraft. We didn't believe that there would be
any dramatic change caused by introducing the F-15 at Robins.
Mr. SIKEs. What is the current workload at Robins? Is that the
C-130's ?
Colonel MORRow. Yes, and C-141 airframes.
Mr. SIxES. The technology for repairing those types of aircraft is
very similar.
Colonel MoRRow. Yes, sir, the airframe workload would be very
similar. As long as they have the physical composition, the building
structures themselves will accommodate the aircraft. That is the main
thing and they will accommodate them at Robins.
Mr. SIKES. Doesn't it cost you something to retrain people to work
on a more sophisticated fighter airframe, swept wings, and so forth ?
These represent real technical problems.
Colonel MORROW. The technical complexity is not necessarily in-
creased from an airframe standpoint.
Mr. SIKES. It is on a swept wing aircraft.
Colonel MoRRow. Very little. Actually most of our aircraft are
fairly complex at the present time, including the C-141 which is a
swept wing aircraft also.
Mr. SIKES. Will you require cold soak facilities such as you have at
McClellan in order to properly test the F-15 ?
Colonel MORRow. Your question was, "Will we require cold soak
facilities for the F-15 ?"
Mr. SIKES. Yes.
Colonel MORRow. No, sir, we will not require a coal soak facility at
all for the F-15.
Mr. SIKES. What about any other similar highly technological test-
ing which will be associated with airframe repair ?
Colonel MORROW. Not that we see at the present time, no, sir.
EXTENT OF REPLACEMENT OF F-4 WITH F-15 AIRCRAFT
Mr. McKAY. You said that the F-15 is coming on line next year,
what does that do for the F-4 ? Does that then begin to move it out
of the fleet and mothball it ?
General REILLY. Colonel Reed.
Mr. McKAY. Put it on the retired list ?
Colonel REED. NO, sir, the F-4 stays in the inventory. There is some
reduction in the older model in the outyears. We are talking 1977, 1978
time frames. The F-4 as a basic weapon system stays in the inventory
and does not move out.
Mr.. McKAY. Isn't the F-15 to replace the F-4 eventually ?
Colonel REED. Not a 1-to-1 basis, no, sir. There is some reduction
particularly in the older C-type model aircraft but there is no 1-for-1
ratio in the reduction of the aircraft. We can provide numbers for the
record if you desire.
Mr. McKAY. I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
EXTENT OF REPLACEMENT OF F-4 WITr F-15 AIRCRAFT
frhe following data reflects the active duty operational fighter aircraft pro.
grammed to be assigned to tactical units. It excludes training and reserve forces
aircraft.
Fiscal year-
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
F-4- ---------------------------------------- 1,044
F-15 - - -, 00IDeleted]
EFFECT OF TECHNOLOGY REPAIR CENTERS ON FISCAL YEAR 1974
PROJECTS
Mr. SIKES. Under the TRC concept, Warner-Robins Air Material
Area will have the largest increase in man-years employed in TRC's.
Will there be much impact of the TRC's implementation on the proj-
ects you are requesting here ? How do you know ?
Colonel MORROW. Warner-Robins Air Materiel Area will have the
largest net increase of work under the Technology Repair Center
(TRC) concept but its total TRC workload will not be as large as
several of the other AMA's. There will be a negligible impact of the
TRC implementation on the projects we are requesting. The study
group which recommended the TRC approach looked very carefully
at facilities at WRAMA and elsewhere. It concluded that projects
being requested were essential to the economic operation of the work-
load already assigned to WRAMA and the facilities could effectively
accommodate the new workload without additional modification.
LOW PRIORITY PROJECTS
Mr. SIKEs. The projects for a materials analysis laboratory and the
alteration of the depot aircraft maintenance hangars were not au-
thorized last year. They are in the bottom 20 percent of the program
this year. That would indicate that they may not be very urgent. Do
you want to discuss that ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, In any priority scheme it is simply a matter of
relative placement. We believe that they are needed, they are neces-
sary, to effect efficient operation of our depots and particularly here
at Warner-Robins.
Mr. SIKES. Will they be needed more next year than they are this
year?
Colonel MoRRow. If the deterioration continues, yes, sir, we would
anticipate they would be needed more next year.
Mr. SIKES. Are there questions on Robins ?
COMPARISON WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY
Mr. PATTEN. Just a general question.
Do you have any comparison of how good a job you do in logistics,
in taking care of your equipment and in overhaul, as compared to pri-
vate industry? These commercial airplanes fly continuously for the
commercial airlines. There must be a lot of relative figures because
they must have to work on their engines and they must have to col-
laborate. They must need proper facilities.
Just off the top of your head do you have a feeling how you look
compared to the industry ?
Colonel MORROW. Sir, we think that the comparisons are very favor-
able. Our primary reason, as you know, sir, for keeping the in-house
organic capability is for responsiveness during wartime.
We think that the private sector of industry is very capable and
turns out good products and we believe we do the same thing in the
depots. We are unable to make any individual comparison where one
is substandard and the other is better.
The nature of the Government-owned and operated facilities is
such that the responsiveness is a little shorter and a little faster, and
quicker, because we have a captive concern to operate with, but as
far as the quality of the product we make there is no comparison there
other than favorable.
Mr. PATTEN. I believe the clerk has some questions.
214
ASSIGNMENT OF F-15 WORKLOAD TO ROBINS
Mr. NICHOLAs. You stated earlier that the placement of the F-15 at
Robins was based on its ability to accommodate it at no additional
costs, other than what would be entailed anywhere. If the costs are the
same elsewhere, as this implies, this still leaves us guessing as to why
you assigned this new fighter aircraft to Robins which hasn't repaired
fighters since the late 1950's. Provide for the record the steps you ac-
tually went through in deciding to assign this to Robins and show what
other alternatives were specifically considered and why they were re-
jected.
[The information follows:]
215
JUSTIFICATION FOR ASSIGNING F-15 OVERHAUL TO ROBINS
There are a number of considerations which must be taken into account in the
assignment of an important workload. Certainly paramount among these are: the
capability to fully respond in a timely manner to the support requirements of the
particular weapon system under consideration, the assurance of no adverse impact
on support responsiveness for other first line weapon systems, the maintenance of
technical competency in each of the depots for engineering and technical assist-
ance to the operational forces, and the appropriate balance of workload to assure
capability to readily respond to surge requirements for repair of engaged weapon
systems during military contingencies. Economic considerations are important
when all other factors equate out or when cost at a particular site is so great
that it becomes prudent to override other supportive factors. In the case of the
F-15 assignment, a combination of the dominant considerations mentioned above
singled out Robins as the desirable location and cost did not argue against that
judgment.
In reaching the decision regarding placement of the F-15 aircraft workload,
the following steps were taken:
a. Timely response to F-15 support requirements: While all five AMAs
possessed the necessary technical expertise to satisfy this criterion, the others
were projected to have this capability preoccupied with other high priority work-
load while Robin's capability was projected to be more unhampered.
b. Assurance of no adverse input on support of other first line weapon
systems: With a smaller airframe workload than the other depots the chances of
adversely impacting other priority workload was minimized at Robins. Continued
support of the largest number of first line aircraft at any single installation
will still be required with the F-4 at Hill. The assignment of the A-7 aircraft
as well as continued heavy commitment for B-52 support provides the emphasis on
aircraft workload at Tinker. C-5 and B-52 work will continue at Kelly and F-111,
FB-11l and other fighter support will be provided by McClellan. Support for none
of these critical programs can be even slightly jeopardized.
U. Maintenance of Technical Competence at each Depot: Assignment of the
A-7 to Tinker along with the responsibility for many modifications to the B-52
assure continuing technical competency to that AMA. With the latest model of the
Air Force's first line fighter, the F-4, still coming off the production line plus
the sophisticated modifications planned for that aircraft, technical competency
remaining at Hill is assured. The increasing C-5 workload along with that from
the B-52 provides this same effect at Kelly as does the F-111 and FB-111 for
McClellan. Assignment of the F-15 to Robins provides the same assurance of
continued technical competency for that AMA.
d. Assurance of capability to respond to surge requirements: The increased
workload involved with the primary systems during a peace to war (mobilization)
transition is approximately as stated below: (Does not include the F-15 for which
such an increase cannot be developed at this time).
For Hill - approximately 75% increase in the workload of the engaged
(combat) systems.
For Tinker - approximately 73% increase for the engaged systems.
For McClellan - approximately 71% increase for the engaged systems.
For Kelly - approximately 82% increase for the engaged systems.
For Robins - approximately 67% increase for the engaged systems.
The difference in the relative role depicted above is not overly significant but
in the interest of maintaining a balance this factor also favored Robins in
assignment of the F-15.
e. Costs: As stated elsewhere, since the cost of accepting the F-15 air-
craft workload would be approximately the same at any depot, it was not a deter-
mining factor in the workload assignment.
Sunmary. Considering all the factors above, the logical choice for assign-
ment of the F-15 aircraft workload was Robins.
Mr. NICHOLAS. I would like some more specifics on what all the
costs of starting up F-15 repair at Robins will be, the training costs,
the costs of equipment and tools, the total military construction,
minor construction, O. & M. and industrial fund costs for construc-
tion. Will you please provide that for the record for Robins. Also
show what these costs would be at Hill and at Tinker which are
bases which have major fighter repair assignments.
[The information follows:]
Costs for personnel training associated with F-15 aircraft repair at Robins
will total approximately $178,500. This training will take approximately 119
man-months and will entail courses on such subjects as aircraft environmental
system repair technician, weapons system mechanic, aircrew egress system
repairer, aircraft fuel system technician, aircraft maintenance technician, and
airframe repair technician.
Since this training is on the peculiar requirements of the F-15 aircraft,
approximately the same amount and cost of training would occur at either
Tinker or Hill if the F-15 were placed there.
Tools and equipment used on the F-15 fall into two general categories:
common use and peculiar equipment. Common use equipment is that which
is not unique to any particular aircraft but may be used on all. This equipment
consists of such items as lathes, boring machine, planes, heat treat, plating shop
equipment, welding and digital analysis test equipment. This equipment is
replenished through the DPMP and none is being obtained specifically for
the F-15. The 5-year DPMP (fiscal years 1972-76) will invest in common use
equipment as follows: Robins, $15 million (primarily for airframes and acces-
sories) ; Tinker, $45 million (primarily for engines and airframes) ; and Hill,
$18 million (primarily for airframes and accessories). Total peculiar equipment
costs for depot level maintenance is not yet definitized, but the costs would be
identical for either of the three bases since by definition no existing common
use equipment could do the job.
The only military construction cost associated with the F-15 at Robins is
$240,000 for the depot aircraft runup facility included in this year's request
for appropriation. This same cost would be entailed at either Hill or Tinker if
the F-15 airframe workload were placed there. Additional construction costs
would not be anticipated at either depot to accommodate the F-15 airframe
workload.
Mr. NICHOLAS. YOU said that the only way that the F-15 could be
assigned to another base would be to move an appropriate amount
of work out. Can you provide for the record the airframe workloads
for fiscal years 1973 through 1977 at Robins, Hill, and Tinker for the
record? Also provide for the record the flying hours and numbers
of aircraft scheduled for the aircraft for which airframe overhaul
is done at Robins, Hill, and Tinker through 1979.
[The information follows:]
AIRFRAME WORKLOADS AND NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT OVERHAULED AT ROBINS, HILL,
AND TINKER
Following is a depot level maintenance workload on airframes and total
depot level maintenance workloads at Hill, Tinker, and Robins Air Force Bases
for fiscal years 1973-77.
217
HILL AFB
[Million man-hoursi
Fiscal year-
Name of aircraft 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
F-4C-...--------------------------- 0.722 0. 512 0. 587 0. 520 0. 520
F-4D. ---------------------------- .628 .576 .398 .319 .319
F-4E.----------------------------- .682 1.853 1.653 1.565 1.565
RF-4C.--------------------------- .545 .567 .498 .388 .388
Other nonprogramed..........._..__ .758 .250 .250 .250 .250
Total airframe.................. 3. 335 3. 758 3.385 3.042 3.042
Total depot workload.. ___............. 8.433 9.082 8.846 8.479 8.479
TINKER AFB
A-7. ----------------------------- 0.185 0.662 0.685 0.753 0.753
B-52G.---------------------------- 1.644 2.017 2.461 2.096 2.096
C-135 ...-- ..- .- ....-.........--.. .505 .510 .362 .324 .324
Other nonprogramed- ---.------__ --- .104 .149 .149 .149 .149
Total airframe..._.............. 2.438 3.338 3.657 3.322 3.322
Total depot workload.____ __ ____ _ 11.717 11.070 10. 325 9.900 9.837
ROBINS AFB
C-130_____ _- ___ ___________ 1.195 1.197 1.057 .969 .969
C-141 --------------------------- 1. 252 1.075 1. 222 1.222 1.222
F-15...----------------------------- 0 0 .028 .078 .078
Other nonprogramed___ .603 .132 .132 .132 .132
Total airframe- ..____ ......__. 3.050 2.404 2.439 2.401 2.401
Total depot workload __---___--------7.663 7.619 7.738 8.086 8.128
Note: Flying hours and numbers of aircraft by type are classified Secret and are supplied separately.
F/RF-4, F-15, B-52G, A-7, C-130 SERIES, C-141, C-135 SERIES OPERATIONAL ACTIVE (OA) AIRCRAFT AND FLYING HOURS AS SHOWN IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION 1
Fiscal year 1974 Fiscal year 1975 Fiscal year 1976 Fiscal year 1977 Fiscal year 1978 Fiscal year 1979
Number Flying Number Flying Number Flying Number Flying Number Flying Number Flying
Aircraft type of OA hours of OA hours of OA hours of OA hours of OA hours of OA hours
F-4C ------------------------------ 268 75,137)
F-4D ------------------------------ 466 14039 Deleted
FOIE--------------------------------- 575 182,70211
RF-4C . . .325 101,130J -
RF-4C-------------------------------
Total, F/RF-4...........------------------- 1,634 499,360 [Deleted.
F-15---. ---- ----..---.--.. -------- 14 98
B-52G..------------------------------- 167 85,280
A-7....----------------------------- 333 84,654
C-141 -----..------..............------------------ 254 337,600 Deleted.
C-130 series....------------------------- 671 487,525
C-135 series..-------------------------- 712 339, 294
1 Includes all active and reserve forces. These do not translate directly to organic depot airframe support requirements due to modifications, changes in overhaul requirements, number supported by
contract, etc. This is particularly true in the case of the C-130 and C-135 series of aircraft.
Mr. NICHOLAS. It would appear from your workload projections that
the F-15 might be accommodated at Hill or Tinker without overload-
ing the facilities. Why do you say that other work would have to be
moved out?
Colonel MORRow. There are two very important considerations which
must be taken into account in the assignment of workload to a depot.
The depot workload should be designed to achieve maximum economy
during peacetime and to assure adequacy of wartime surge response.
To place the F-15 workload at either Tinker or Hill would not be de-
sirable from either standpoint. Workloading significantly in excess
of 85 percent of capacity (one-shift basis) for other than temporary
short-term requirements results in reduced economy. While there are
exceptions to this rule, the continued use of multiple shifts and over-
time results in higher operating costs. Also, since normal peacetime
workload would already be using a substantial portion of the margin
left for surge requirements, ability to meet actual contingencies would
actually be degraded. For these reasons if a substantial additional
workload were to be placed at Hill or Tinker while other factors re-
mained constant, it would be economically and militarily prudent to
move a corresponding amount of work out.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Provide for the record the maximum airframe work-
load which these bases have accommodated in the last 8 years?
[The information follows:]
MAXIMUM AIRFRAME WORKLOAD AT HILL AND TINKER FOR LAST 8 YEARS
The maximum airframe workload accommodated in the last 8 years at Hill
and Tinker is as follows: Hill, fiscal year 1971, 4,326,000 man-hours; Tinker,
fiscal year 1971, 4,279,000 man-hours.
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OILAHIOMA
Mr. SIKES. Take up Tinker Air Force Base.
Place page 40 in the record.
[The page follows:]
SATE S SPA TrENT SI ,ATALLATI OR
AF FY 1974 MILITARY CONHSTRUCTIO PROGRAM TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
4- coYun*O on uan Tasc r evau a InsTALLTIOn COUTrOL Num. a sTITt/COuNTRY
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND WWYK OKLAHOMA
+ s rusa , Era Or mN,,A1L OCcUPNCny * COUNTY(US.) .o u.iartcr
EIGHT MILES SOUTHEAST OF
ACTIVE I1942 OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA CITY, OKIAHOMA
SI. MISSION oR MAJOR NCTIONS Is PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP (AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS (i ffTNsqb R thMha Ow.Cn .NLI.S ER c.vsILIAN or.I E.Ls..d OrP.cES EsI.LNT cI.ILI. TOTAL
SERVICE) City AFS) w rm em ra (a) (A Tr I r) (NJ
SAS orj 31 December 1 587 28 17 22,005 0 3 108 5 0 - 12511
TACTICAL FIGHTER GROUP (RESERVE) P rLA.eno(rPr 76) 5o5 2,656 20;4 e9 38 10 1 56 1 . 23,919
INVENTORY
OKLAHOMA CITY AIR MATERIEL AREA DEPOT LANl ACRES L.N COST (00) IMRIOOVEMENT ('00) TOTAL 000)
COMMUNICATIONS COMPUTER PROGRAM CENTER (AIR FORCE iNE"'N 3 1464 192 0 ,75s683-.
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE) LE. E T 700 () 36 39 75
SINurENTOrT TOTAL (o5 r mlRd .e5 " oA IO JUNE ISf
A .rnoIA.,IO.. RE.ANTeRo T.SPRoS. 15666 -
L sr IsaID Ar taOuzation- uxr 4 ZAnr 40 000
6- GRAND TOTAL (e d * 2 1 3
4. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGN ATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TENANT UNIT Of TIMATE TATO
CTEO PaoJECT TITLE P Or COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE ROT NopE COST
211-253 Depot Aircraft Electric System Components Overhaul & Test
Facility I SF 72,000 3,283 72,000 3,283
218-868 Alter Precision Measurement Equipment Facility 13 SF 19,714 243 19,714 243
441-758 Logistical Materials Storage Facility I SF 360,000 5,431 360,000 5,431
510-001 Add to and Alter Composite Medical Facility 3 8 SF 68,000 3,879 68,000 3,879
811-14A Advanced logistics System Utility Support I LS LS 621 IS 621
812-225 Depot Electrical Distribution System 1 LS LS 1,818 LS 1,818
911-146 Land AC 187 391
TOTAL 15.7
"~ aa ~
UD, T3JO flNIS
S.... 40
F
I_ 1~ _ _ _
221
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
The fifth base is Tinker Air Force Base, located 8 miles southeast of Oklahoma
City, Okla. The primary mission of this base is to support the headquarters of
the Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area. It also supports a reserve tactical fighter
group, communications computer program center, and a mobile communications
group of the Air Force communications service. This request is for six projects
amounting to $15,275,000.
The first project provides for the construction of a depot facility, 72,000 sq. ft.,
for overhauling and testing aircraft electric system components. Now utilizing
a portion of a depot maintenance hanger, this function has an excessively high
rejection rate of close tolerance parts because of contamination. Contamination
is inevitable considering the inadequate environmental control system. Machine
tool vibration transmission by unstable floors makes accurate machine setups
difficult to achieve and maintain, further contributing to facility unsuitability.
The second item alters an existing building to provide an adequate depot
facility for precision measurement equipment. Alteration will reconfigure the
building for optimum work flow and add adequate environmental control so that
equipment calibration and certification can proceed without inordinate delays.
The third project is for construction of a logistical materials storage facility
of 360,000 sq. ft. Twenty-three buildings presently house this activity of which
four are considered adequate. Deterioration characterize the 17 inadequate sub-
standard facilities, some in danger of structural failure. Proper location and
configuration will measurably increase the efficiency of this activity.
The fourth project provides for addition to, and alteration of, an existing
composite medical facility. Current medical needs greatly exceed the facility
capability. The existing building designed and constructed to support a com-
munity with only 15 percent of the present patient loads forced expansion into
substandard. inadequate, and old. deteriorated, temporary frame structures.
Still overcrowding and treatment delays prevail.
The fifth item is for standby utility capability, electric power, and air-con-
ditioning in support of the advanced logistics system computer equipment. Present
service cannot insure continuous reliable operation in the event of outages.
Increased capacity will permit shutdown of primary systems for maintenance
and repair without interrupting computer operations.
The last project provides for upgrading and expansion of the base electrical
distribution system. Currently the electrical distribution systems is operating
at maximum capacity. Projected service demands cannot' be accommodated with
the existing system nor is there alternative service available in cases of com-
ponent failure.
AFLC-TINKER AFB, OKLA.-DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent complete
Project Design cost July 31, 1973
Depot aircraft electric system components overhaul and test facility--------------- $187, 000 45
Alter precision measurement equipment facility..---------------------------- 12, 040 35
Logistical materials storage facility-------------------------------------- 327, 000 40
Add to and alter composite medical facility.--------------------------------256, 000 70
Advanced logistics system utility support.---------------------------------- 30, 340 25
Depot electrical distribution system ..-------------------------------------110, 000 95
Mr. SIKES. The request is for $15,275,000 for an electric system
components overhaul and test facility, a logistic materials storage
facility, addition to the medical facility, and other items.
Which of the projects here are depot plant modernization program
projects?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, four of the six-the first, the elec-
tric system components overhaul, the second, the precision measure-
ment equipment facility, the third, the logistic material storage facil-
ity, and the fifth item, the depot electrical distribution system project.
Mr. SIXEs. Which are justified on economics?
Colonel MonRow. All of the projects are justified on the basis of
economics. I think that this fiscal year they are also needed for other
essential considerations.
222
TECHNOLOGICAL REPAIR CENTERS REALINEMENTS
Mr. SIKES. Which will be impacted by the TRC realinements ?
Colonel MORROw. The projects impacted by the TRC were pro-
gramed in out years. Three of those have been eliminated and one
reduced in scope, as a consequence of our technology repair concept.
Some $3.6 million of projects that we were planning on at Tinker
has been eliminated or reduced. None of the fiscal year 1974 projects
that we have before the committee at the present time were impacted.
Mr. SIXEs. You think that you are losing some functions on the TRC
plan. Do you want to discuss that ? Is that an economical or desirable
thing?
Colonel MORROW. It is both desirable and economical. From the
standpoint of the functions we are losing at Tinker, airborne instru-
ments, missile components, landing-gear repair, we are centralizing
those and consolidating similar kinds of work at other locations and
we are moving that out of Tinker. This will allow Tinker to con-
centrate in the overhaul of engines, large aircraft airframes, certain
instruments, and the alternator drive field.
LOGISTICAL MATERIALS STORAGE FACILITY
Mr. SIKES. Can you show us on a map where the logistical materials
storage facility at Tinker will be located and how this ties in with
shipping and receiving, freight, and other storage facilities?
Colonel MANSPERGER. This is the proposed siting of the materials
storage facility (indicating). Here is the location of the logistical
material processing facility. Here is the existing standard warehous-
ing in which we have our small items and semiautomated retrieval
system. Here is a gate so the truck traffic entering the gate can go
directly to the in-processing and out-processing facility where items
can be conveyed directly to the small-item warehouse or moved directly
over to this warehouse. The air freight terminal is directly below
this area.
The Precision Measurement Equipment Facility is here. The loca-
tion of the Electrical System Component Overhaul and Test Facility
will be here, and the hospital is in this area.
SAVINGS FROM MODERNIZATION PROJECTS
Mr. SIKES. Provide for the record summaries of the economic evalua-
tions for the applicable projects here. Indicate whether they have been
revalidated to reflect any workload shifts.
[The information follows:]
LOG
. AE 2. F CA YEAR 3. EPARTY 4 IN TAiATION
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA
15 N 197 1974 (Coni,,,,d) AF TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
5. LINE E NUMBER 6 LINE ITM TILE
DEPor A/C fLECEcTRCAL SYSTLE4 LoeMDoNNT oeFReHAaL- AND 7 Sr F4tiTry
1:0-74-102 211-253 _______
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project provides for construction of 72,000 SF of Constant Speed Alternator Drive Shop space. The
building is to be permanent construction which will contain overhaul, repair, and testing facilit .es for
alternator drives.
2 PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: The project will improve personnel productivity, reduce rejects, and improve flow time. An overall
improvement in product quality will be realized extending the life of the product an estimated 7%;.
A total annual savings over $610,000 and a one-time savings of $4,640,000 is anticipated from :his
project.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A
S1 INVESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost
b. Supporting Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment (MMHS & ATES)
d. Design Cost
e. Other Cost (Equipment Relocation)
f. Total Costs
2 VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3 NET INVESTMENT
4 PRESENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
5. PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
6. P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
7 SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT L
$2,765,000
518,000
2,936,000
445,330
117.000
$6,781,330
$ 520,062
$6,261,268
$2,292,185
429,422
4,089,848
445,330
111,618
$7,368,403
$ 520,062
$6,848,341
1.30
1. PERSONNEL PRESENTI PROPOSED AN, UAL SAVI
a. Civilian $2,007,325 $1,596,315 $ 411,010
b. Military - N/A
c. Other - N/A
2. OPERATING
a. Materials $7,753,200 $7,553,000 200,200
b. Utilities 14,373 17,196 (2,823)
c. Maintenance,
& Repairs 117,428 112,855 .4,573
d. Other - N/A
3. OVERHEAD - N/A
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 612,960
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL
SAVINGS $ 5,837,831
5. ONE TIME SAVINGS $ 4,640,000
Sa. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIME
SAVINGS $ 4,426,560
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD) $1[,264,391
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR) $ E,899,226
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A 0.867
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY 1975
. .--,..g 22N - 5
092a- REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
DDL 62 1391c
_,, ,,..,,,,
NGS
Page No. -
,. oar . MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 JAti 1973 1974 (ConrAnuoi AF TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
10. cNu-74-106
105-74-106
218-868 ALTER PRECISION MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT LABORATORY
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alters the production support area of the Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory to provide
environmental controls and space for additional calibration operations.
2. PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Increased productivity of the Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory personnel resulting in an
annual savings of over $60,000.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
1. INVESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost
b. Supporting Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. Other Cost (Equipment Relocation)
f. Total Costs
2. VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3. NET INVESTMENT
4. PRESENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
5. PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
6. P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
7. SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
$243,000
-0-
-0-
17,010
1,000
$261,010
$ -0-
$261,010
$201,447
-0-
-0-
17,010
$219,411
$ -0-
$219,411
2.42
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED
a. Civilian $757,673 $714,126
b. Military - N/A
c. Other - N/A
2. OPERATING
a. Materials - N/A
b. Utilities $ 265 $ 745 (
c. Maintenance 3,250 9,150
& Repairs
d. Other - N/A
3. OVERHEAD $317,398 $290,335
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL
SAVINGS
5. ONE TIME SAVINGS - N/A
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD)
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR)
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A 0.867
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY 1975
ANNUAL SAVINGS
$ 43,517
$ 430)
$' 5,9)C)
$ 27,053
$ 64,230
$611,7!7
$611,7-7
$530,357
DD~~ ~ ~ FOM1 9 c 50IORLIISI BOAs ..E.-3.
REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
D D,... 1391c ... .
Pae No. 30.5
.oeo: O . 0.-
OtS Ii. PiSCL e oL O a uT YA. tNTALPIOn
.. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 JAN 1973 1974 (cond;nueo AF TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
a. PPolcrTuses S. EOJEAl TITLE
107-74-DSF 441-758 LOGISTICAL MATERIALS STORAGE FACILITY
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A depot warehouse (352,000 SF) to replace storage space in seven temporary wooden storage buildings
(Bldg 14; 37,120 SF: Bldg 12; 99,200 SF: eldg 86; 39,800 SF; Bldg 88; 99,200 SF: Bldg 93; 39,800 SF:
Bldg 469; 16,896 SF: Bldg 200; 35,294 SF) and a Comunications Computer Ptogram Center (B422 & 8423;
15,488 SF, a Red Cross Facility (B720), and a Youth Center (B418; 6,240 SF).
2. PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Increases in personnel productivity, reduction of material damage and the avoidance of- a major
'refurbishing project will result in an annual savings over $540,00 and a one-timed^savings over $3,000.000.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A
1. INVESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost
b. Supporting Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. Other Cost
f. Total Cost
2. VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3. NET INVESTMENT
4. PRESENT VALUE (P.V.1 OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equip
d. Design Cost
e. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
5. PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
6. P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
7. SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
$3,955,000
1,476,000
242,000
397,110
-0-
$6,070,110
$ -0-
$6,070,110
$3,278,695
1,223,604
337,106
397,110
-0-
$5,236,515
$5,236,515
1.23
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED ANNUAL SAVINGS
a. Civilian $698,961 $625,386 $ 73,575
b. Military - N/A
c. Other - N/A
2. OPERATING
a. Materials $879,792 $439,792 $ 439,792
b. Utilities - N/A
c. Maintenance &
Repair $ 43,992 $ 12,572 $ 31,420
d. Other - N/A
3. OVERHEAD - N/A
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 544,787
4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS $5,188,551
5. ONE TIME SAVINGS - N/A $4,811,761
5a. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE TIME SAVINGS $3,009,757
6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD) $8,198,308
7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (Base Year) $6,460,266
8. ECONOMIC LIFE 25 DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A 0.788
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY 1976
35.10
Page N.
r:In oO..u... REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
DD, w 1391e ,,. -T1.....
LOG
I. DATE r. FISCL EAS 3. r555TA T . 15sF wLLATIO
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA . r 4 s.
15 JA 1973 1974 (ConIujesd) AF TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
101-74-DEE 812-225 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - DOD INVESTMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replacement of underground cables, transformers in secondary substations, and switchgear in both tie
distribution substation and distribution system serving two portions of Area "A".
2. PROJECT BENEFITS ABSTRACT: Conversion to 15 KV system will provide support for Depot missions and satisfy continued electr cal
demand requirements. This results in a one-time cost avoidance of over $6,830,000.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS - FORMAT A
1. INVESTMENT
a. Primary Construction Cost
b. Supporting Facility Cost
c. Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. Other Cost
f. Total Costs
2. VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3. NET INVESTMENT
4. PRESENT VALUE (P.V.) OF INVESTMENTS
a. P.V. of Primary Construction Cost
b. P.V. of Supporting Facility Cost
c. P.V. of Initial Outfitting Equipment
d. Design Cost
e. P.V. of Other Cost
f. Total P.V. of Investments
5. PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING FACILITY
6. P.V. OF NET INVESTMENT
7. SAVINGS/INVESTMENT RATIO
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS - FORMAT B
$1,773,00
45,00
-0
127,26
-0
$1,945,26
$ -O
$1,945,26
$1,469,81
37,30
-0
127,26
-0
$1,634,38
$ -0
$1,634,38
3.,
1. PERSONNEL PRESENT PROPOSED
00 a. Civilian - No Change
00 b. Military - No Change
- c. Other - N/A
60 2. OPERATING
- a. Materials - No Change
0 b. Utilities - No Change
- c. Maintenance & Repairs - No Change
0 d. Other - N/A
3. OVERHEAD
4. TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
7 4a. PRESENT VALUE OF ANNUAL
5 SAVINGS
0- 5. ONE TIME SAVINGS
.0 5a. PRESENT VALUE OF ONE-TIME
- SAVINGS
2 6. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BOD)
0-
12 7. TOTAL P.V. OF BENEFITS (BASE YEAR)
6 . ECONOMIC LIFE 25 YR DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% TABLE A 0.867
TABLE B 9.524
9. BENEFICIAN OCCUPANCY DATE (BOD) FY-1975
ANNUAL
! SAVINGS
$ -0-
$10, .94,820
$ 6,.33,659
$ 6, 33,659
$ 5, '24,782
MM1 OCT TO . .jamC P0551055 ESITIm IS OBSOLETE. REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL Pags Ro. 4.4
FC CO-FFTCTT, -E
FOR nFFTrTAT, TIre ONTY
Page N _ 54.4
yJ
REVISED COMMAND SUBMITTAL
DD, IM. 1391c MSEVIO == EOI*I
AIRCRAFT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FACILITY
Mr. SIKES. What types of electrical systems will the $3,283,000
facility support ?
Colonel MORROW. All the alternator drive work that we have within
the Air Force is accomplished at Tinker Air Force Base.
Mr. SIRES. Are these related to one of the TRC's to be established
at Tinker ? Will this facility be properly sized ? Can you readily add
or delete space as required once it has been constructed?
Colonel MORROW. Yes; however, the work to be accomplished in
this facility is unique to all the Air Force and has been and will con-
tinue to be all accomplished at Tinker AFB. It makes up a family
group of its own. This repair and test activity is nearly completely
self-sufficient in that it has minimum dependence on support shops
and items received for repair come from the field. As such, TRC rea-
linements do not affect this activity or the size of the facility which
is of proper scope. It is designed to provide normal flexibility ;for
adding or deleting space.
COMPOSITE MEDICAL FACILITY ADDITION AND ALTERATION
Mr. SIKES. What are the shortcomings of the present hospital at
Tinker?
Colonel BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, Tinker Air Force Base has an under-
sized crowded base hospital.
Mr. SIKES. Built when ?
Colonel BAIRD. It was completed in 1959. It does not meet the needs
of the military community and their families at Tinker Air Force
Base. It was constructed from a design which was completed in the
mid-1950's when the emphasis was primarily on inpatient care. As
the emphasis has shifted to outpatient care-and we have seen an in-
crease of 10 percent in prescriptions per year and about 20 percent
in lab procedures per year and gains in outpatient workload in gen-
eral-we have found the facility becoming more crowded and delivery
of health care inefficient.
Mr. SIKES. Looking at the statistics we have before us the purely
military figure is relatively stable; dependents are up some but not a
great deal. There is a fairly substantial increase in retired personnel.
Where is the additional load coming from, retired personnel ?
Colonel BAIRD. No, sir. The load has not increased. The capability to
accommodate that load in the small facility is the problem. It is too
crowded to accommodate that workload. We are putting more emphasis
on people getting outpatient care. The inpatient part of the facility is
perfectly adequate. It is the outpatient clinics and support spaces
which are inadequate. We intend to add 50 percent to the outpatient
clinic space and 90 percent to the support space like labs. We feel we
will gain more efficiency and better delivery of health care in the larger
clinics.
Mr. SIKES. The major numbers of military personnel at Tinker be-
long to missions other than the depot mission. Are these firm missions ?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir. There are no planned changes to those mis-
sions. The AFLC mission is also projected to continue at basically the
same level.
228
Mr. SIKES. Figures provided the staff indicate that your outpatient
workload from 1968 to 1977 will stay about even. Why do you need
more outpatient space ? Provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
NEED FOR INCREASED OUTPATIENT SPACE AT USAF HOSPITAL TINKER
The existing outpatient area was constructed under mid-1950 clinical practice
criteria and concepts. It included 10 clinician work stations, which are outpatient
units consisting of office and examination capabilities. Under mid-1970's modern
concepts, this facility has been designed with 26 work stations, to care for the
relatively constant outpatient workload. It has been designed with larger an-
cillary support services in recognition of the other measures of workload, labora-
tory procedures, X-rays, and prescriptions, which have markedly increased. The
proposed design will eliminate overcrowding and inefficiencies so that the medical
staff can deliver optimum health care to the military community in a modern
and efficient health facility.
Mr. SIRES. Supply for the record workload data which support your
contention that workload has increased since this hospital was con-
structed.
[The information follows:]
WORKLOAD DATA FOR USAF HOSPITAL TINKER
Outpatient Lab
Calendar year visits ADPL1 X-ray procedures Prescriptions
1960. -----------------------------120, 641 38 27, 815 88, 332 85, 319
1961----------------------------- 164,359 42 28,111 74,033 118,279
1962.-----------------------------185,087 53 31,577 70, 733 135, 437
1963....---------------------------- 216,868 56 33,393 77,886 126,119
1964----------------------------- 228,941 58 37,187 80,794 137,308
1965....-----------------------------279,189 60 50,802 91,163 146,088
1966......---.....................-------------------------.. 321,599 55 63, 439 100, 544 160, 492
1967 ...----------------------------- 266,587 55 71,018 95,315 192,432
1968.---------------------------- 210, 963 48 69, 225 95, 960 221,383
1969.....---------------------------........................ 201,772 48 69,650 103,914 242,654
1970-----------------------------213,313 51 65,325 213,407 228,363
1971--..-------------------------- 202,761 39 69, 952 209, 647 230,904
1972..----------------------------....190,673 36 80,038 258,201 243, 905
1 Average daily patient load.
2 Laboratory specimens were reported prior to Jan. 1, 1970. Specimens and procedures are not equal units of
measurement.
Mr. SixEs. Are there questions on Tinker ?
Mr. PATTEN. YOU make the statement in the justifications this facil-
ity was designed and constructed in support of a community with less
than 15 percent of the patient loads that are being experienced. That
is one-seventh. In other words, you are saying that the patient load is
seven times what this hospital was built for ?
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. IS that a true statement ?
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, Mr. Patten. That workload is a relationship of
how many times an individual goes to see a doctor and how many times
when an individual goes to see a doctor lab work is done. It used to
be a man would come into a military hospital we would examine him,
perhaps do lab work, perhaps give him a prescription and send him
back to duty. Now we give him an X-ray and two or three lab lests.
He may go to a specialist. We have expanded the care given to an indi-
vidual. The demands per individual have increased.
Mr. PATTEN. That unit cost is up to $58. Every time I make a com-
parison I get into trouble, but for our outpatient care in our local
situation we bought some housing across the street from the hospital
and they are all happy with the arrangement. We have a lot of people
now who do not have to come into the hospital and have no parking
problem. There is greater access in what we call the rear, where there
is less congestion. The hospital people tell me that they are very happy
'with the arrangement, and a good part of the outpatient work is be-
ing done in an adjoining frame building. If a fellow needs a specialist
he will be referred to the main facility.
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. They are happy with the buildings that they have,
which certainly are not any $60 a square foot.
Colonel BAIRD. We found it is more efficient and from the stand-
point of maintenance and utilities to add to the present facility. This
is a concrete structure. By adding to it, it also prevents patients from
having to walk between buildings in the elements, Oklahoma dust
storms and cold winters. It also eliminates the requirement to duplicate
some of these facilities in an outbuilding. If we had X-ray only in
the main building, a man who needed one would have to move between
structures. This way he stays indoors and goes from one department
to another.
Mr. SIKES. Are there further questions?
Dr. Long?
HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION FOR RETIRED PERSONNEL
Mr. LONG. What percentage of the present medical facility is used
by retired personnel ?
Colonel BAIRD. We find that approximately 25 percent of our
out-patient workload is generated by retired personnel. For this facil-
ity the additional request has only been designed to accommodate 5
percent of that under the DOD guidelines.
Mr. LONG. I am concerned that you are not supposed to build a
new building to take, care of retired people. We are looking at the
West Point hospital situation, and I am convinced the Army tried
to stretch cadet use to build a bigger facility for the retired com-
munity. I would hope that you are not doing that here.
What about other people: do you have anybody else besides retired
personnel who are using this hospital at the present time, but for
whom under law von could not build a new medical facility ?
Colonel RAIRD. No, sir. The, users of the facility are active duty and
their families, dependents of retired, and retired military personnel.
Mr. LONG. Retired are the onlv ones?
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, sir, the only other category.
HOSPITAL BEDS IN OKLAHOMA CITY
Mr. LONG. Wha about the bed occupancy of the present facility ?
Colonel BATRD. The bed occupancy of the present facility is lower
than the constructed capacity of the hospital and for this reason we
are not requesting any other beds. We did do an analysis in the local
area and did determine that the Oklahoma City area is short of beds.
Therefore we did not recommend that we convert any of the bed spaces
to any other use.
Mr. LONG. This bed occupancy business is peculiar. I have heard that
Baltimore is short of beds, and I have heard Baltimore has far more
beds than are used. It is kind of hard to reconcile that, to find the truth
between such conflicting statements.
I have medical friends, and one .at Hopkins tells me there is no prob-
lem of beds anyhere in the Baltimore area. That makes me wonder
a little bit about Oklahoma. Why is Oklahoma different ? As you well
know all over the country hospitals are finding ways to get people out
of the hospital sooner. Bed occupancies are declining even though
populations which hospitals are serving are increasing enormously.
Colonel BAIRD. We addressed this point on each project. In this
case we contacted the State Hill-Burton directors and they advised us
that they have 2,098 beds in the area and require .an additional 1,000
in Oklahoma City. For this reason we did not recommend any change
in the bed status at Tinker.
Mr. LONG. You do have a surplusage of beds here ?
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. LONG. Can you take some of that space that you are not using
for beds -and use it for some of these other out-patient facilities that
you need ?
Colonel BAIRD. We addressed that question, sir, and on the basis of
the Hill-Burton finding, Oklahoma City was short 1,000 beds. So we
felt it unwise to alter any of that space at this time. We are only about
20 beds over requirement.
Mr. LONG. You are a military facility. Why do you have -an obliga-
tion to round out or supplement or complement medical facilities of
Oklahoma as a whole ? That is not your responsibility.
Colonel BAIRD. We have a program called CHAMPUS, which au-
thorizes dependents who can not be accommodated in military facili-
ties to use civilian hospitals. Therefore, if we have inadequate beds
for the dependents they must use CHAMPUS.
Mr. LONG. I though you said you did have adequate beds in your
hospitals ?
Colonel BAIRD. We do. But with the city short we don't feel we should
reduce the number of beds we have. If we do get to the situation where
we need them they will be available.
Mr. LONG. What is your bed occupancy ?
Colonel BAIRD. The average load there is 32.
Mr. LONG. Percent?
Colonel BAIRD. 32 Beds.
Mr. LONG. Out of how many ?
Colonel BAIRD. Out of constructed capacity of 75. We are allowed
by DOD-
Mr. LONG. It is less than 50 percent?
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, sir.
We are allowed by DOD to retain an additional 18 beds for dis-
persion factor. This factor is on extra allowance for special circum-
stances. We may have a male and female for a 2-bed room, one bed
is lost because we cannot put people of different sexes in the same room.
There are also situations where a patient with a contagious disease
must be isolated.
Mr. LONG. Things are getting stricter and stricter?
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, sir. It is not possible to put people with con-
tagious diseases in a 2-bed room.
Mr. LONG. I understand that. But with the 18 beds, subtract 18 beds
from the 75, is that what you said ?
Colonel BAIRD. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. That would bring it down to 57. You are only using 32.
You are still only using 32 beds out of a total of 57. Why doesn't that
give you some extra room that you can use for other facilities, espe-
cially since it is likely that in the future hospital occupancy is going to
continue to go down ?
Colonel BAIRD. The national pattern is that way; yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. If that is so, it seems to me that we have got some room
here without asking for more facilities. So far as the rest of Oklahoma
City is concerned, I don't think that is your responsibility. I think you
are stretching it.
Colonel BAIRD. We thought we should not eliminate a resource which
is already built and ask the help of the community.
Mr. LoNG. I don't think we are asking you to eliminate a resource
but just converting and trying to save $4 million. I think that is an
awful lot of money. $4 million is the cost that I see in come cases for
100-bed hospitals. Very close to it.
Colonel BAIRD. We don't build a hospital per se but a composite medi-
cal facility, which means beds plus large out-patient facilities.
Mr. LONG. All hospitals do?
Colonel BAIRD. No, sir. Most of the doctors have their offices in pro-
fessional buildings. All of our doctors will have offices in our composite
medical facility.
Mr. LONG. I must run into a very different type of hospital in Bal-
timore. All hospitals I see have out-patient facilities, very large ones.
Colonel BAIRD. Many have small out-patient facilities, unless they are
teaching hospitals. Many will have emergency rooms. We have that,
but also provide the doctors with their own offices in our hospitals. That
is a unique difference.
Mr. LONG. Really, I just don't think you have made a case for this
hospital which can stand on its own legs. You are putting one leg in
the community and stretching it, and I request you take another look
at that. I don't think you have justified this project.
General REILLY. Dr. Long, may I ask Colonel Baird what the peak
bed requirements have been running as opposed to the average he is
quoting.
Colonel BAIRD. I don't have a specific figure but the DOD prescribed
computation validated the retention of this hospital as a 75-bed
hospital.
Mr. LONG. You are just telling us this is not inconsistent with DOD
rules. I think we ought to get a justification for this particular hospital
on the basis of the facts and utilization of this particular hospital. I
really think that you ought to come back here with some more figures.
If you have a peak load, as the General says, that makes it necessary
for you to have this number of hospital beds so that you can't convert
part of it to out-patient, then let us see those figures.
Colonel BAIRD. All right, sir.
Mr. SIKEs. You have heard the request. If you have additional in-
formation to support the facility, I suggest that you do so.
General REILLY. We would like to submit additional justification.
232
[The information follows:]
Inpatient space requirements for USAF Hospital Tinker were programed on
the basis of a mathematical formula and a facility analysis.
The mathematical basis for programing was the projected average daily
patient load of 33 patients plus a dispersion factor of 18 beds as authorized by
DOD criteria to allow for beds rendered unusable due to a patient's age, sex, or
condition, plus two beds as authorized by DOD as a 5 percent additive factor to
support teaching and training. These calculations produced a mathematical pro-
graming base of 53 beds. Peak daily workload experience of 50 to 53 patients also
validated the programing base.
The facility analysis indicated that many of the patient's bedrooms were in-
adequate with less than 100 square feet per bed. The four bed units and five bed
units were re-rated to three and four bed units respectively, so that we can now
provide adequate space per bed. The hospital's normal operating bed capacity was
recomputed at approximately 60 beds. The facility analysis also showed that the
crowded inefficient conditions in the clinics and the integral ancillary support
services such as X-ray, laboratory, and pharmacy, could be relieved by an ad-
dition and alteration project in the outpatient area on the ground floor. This same
analysis indicated that conversion of the building space presently used for in-
patient health care to outpatient functions would not improve the operation of
the hospital. In some cases greater inefficiencies in the movement of outpatients
would result if outpatient facilities were dispersed throughout the floors of this
multi-storied medical facility.
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIo
Mr. SixES. Turn to Wright-Patterson and insert page 47 in the
record.
[The information follows:]
I NATO - S. OSCnaR OaLLTa
FY 19 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
S. coMANo o uousiUS~u N. INA ron cUnO sS . TAT r COUNTTy
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND ZTV OHIO
7. STATr US. YIA O INITIAL O.CUPANCcy . couNTy (U.S.) IS. ARY CITY
GREENE & ONE MILE WEST OF FAIRBORH, OHIO
ACTIVE 1 MONTGaMERY FIVE MILES NORTHEAST OF DAYTON OHIO
*. NIUSION OR MJORPUCTIUNS PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
HEAVY . BRRARDMET WING (STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND) PERSOaNEL ST.ENoTH oI'. NL a..Iv.uaN oP RI. ENIs.. TA o ans LISTS CI.L TOTAL
AIR FORCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IABORATOCIS w (1 r 5 I (u (I a (u m e) 'J
(AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COPIAND) a Sor3 3DecemberA 2 3 3 1392117186 741 2 4 -214 29
AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (AIR UNIVERSITY) ,*.L Ord.d 76) 3 335 ,590 16 824 7o1 - 214 - 257
FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION (AIR FORCE SYSTEMS LAND ACRES LAO. oST rooJ I urovEMrT (Mro) TOTAL (MO)
COMMAND) ru S rn (S
..... 792l 1, 8
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND HEADQUARTERS Lo A..... 64 8 1 2852
C INVENTORY TO .AL Spd .Q A. ASC So ANE .o-72 28 11
AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION (AIR FORCE SYSTEMS A. urTOnIZArTIoN r O rT ,. uINVuroR Excludes Family Housing 13,783,000 10010
COMAAN) . AUIUToZAION ROU oUEC I. wI. 19.551
Ie. OSVTSn CAUMTNRI A io - S.EaUr A 45.000
d. GRAND TOTAL (C d + 359,680
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY - TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE r t COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE OST SCOPEST
M__U__ SOPE C lT SCOPE COT
141-454 Addition to Technical Intelligence Operations Facility I AFNC SF 242,870 11,000 242,870 11,000
310o-612 Alter Aircraft Engine Component Research Facility I AFSC SF 86,945 1,887 86,945 1,887
310-632 Aircraft Fuels and Lubricants Laboratory I AFSC SF 68,250 4,857 68,250 4,857
310-926 Add to and Alter Human Impact Laboratory Facility I AFSC SF 9,490 390 9,490 390
722-211 Airmen Dormitories 3 3 MN 194 1,117 194 1,117
811-14A Advanced Logistics System Utility Support I IS LS 300 S 300
TOTAL 19,551 19,551
i r FoUM , a
MJ OUT joW" CONGRESSIONAL
PAR ea 47
234
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
The last Air Force Logistics Command location to be considered is Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, located 5 miles northeast of Dayton, Ohio. The pri-
mary mission of this base is to support the Headquarters of the Air Force Lo-
gistics Command. It also supports the Aeronautical System Division of the Air
Force Systems Command; the Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University;
a Strategic Air Command Heavy Bombardment Wing; and the Air Force Sys-
tems Command Foreign Technology Division. This request for six projects for
$19,511,000 includes four projects for the Air Force Systems Command for
$18,134,000.
The first project provides construction of 242,870 square feet as the second
and final phase of the technical intelligence operations facility. Currently, the
Foreign Technology Division is housed in nine overcrowded buildings of which
seven are substandard. These structures are widely dispersed making efficient
accomplishment of this vital task most difficult.
The second item is for alteration of an existing facility to provide an aircraft
engine component research facility. Currently, the aeropropulsion laboratory has
no facility to conduct compressor research.
The third construction project provides an aircraft fuels and lubricants labora-
tory of 68,250 square feet. Research is now fragmented throughout widely
dispersed and inadequate facilities. Most cannot meet safety criteria and have
inadequate environmental control.
The fourth project adds to and alters an existing human impact laboratory to
house new test equipment. Alteration will encompass 4,570 square feet; the
addition will be 4,920 square feet. The existing human impact facility can per-
form research in only the vertical plane. This construction adds space for in-
stallation of equipment which will permit proper horizontal testing.
The fifth item is for construction of a 194-man airmen dormitory. 40 percent
of the assigned must now live in substandard, wood-frame, over 30-year-old-dormi-
tories designed for a 10-year life expectancy. These structures are without wall
or ceiling insulation, have inadequate lighting and environmental control, and
provide poorly configured living areas.
The last project requested is for utilities support of Advanced Logistics Sys-
tem computer equipment. Present commercial power is not adequate to assure
continuous operation. This project will provide adequate electrical and air-con-
ditioning services to insure continuing operation should commercial power fail or
should it require shutdown for maintenance and/or repair.
AFLC-WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO-DESIGN INFORMATION (DESIGN COST ESTIMATED)
Percent
Design complete
Project cost July 31, 1973
Addition to technical intelligence operations facility __...- ... ..._._._ .._._ .___ $454, 500 35
Alter aircraft engine component research facility-.-.---------...--..-._ - _ 155, 800 15
Aircraft fuels and lubricants laboratory-. ..............__ .... _ ____ ... 245, 000 50
Add to and alter human impact laboratory facility ......_...._ 7, 200 100
Airmen dormitories--_.----------.....-.- --- - -- - - - - - 60, 000 45
Advanced logistics system utility support ....._ .. ... ...... ..... 14, 650 25
Enlisted barracks summary, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
Men/Women'
Total requirement---- ------------------------------------1,434
Existing substandard------------- ----------------------------- 555
Existing adequate----------- ----------------------------------------- 842
Funded, not in inventory 0------------------------------------------ 0
Adequate assets---------- ----------------------------------- 842
Deficiency ------- -------------------------------- 592
Fiscal year 1974 program---------------- ------------------------ 194
Barracks spaces occupied (average), March 31, 1973 1----------------- , 007
1 90 square feet per man-permanent party E2-4.
2 None upgradable.
3 Includes 142 personnel in private housing.
Mr. SIKES. The request is for $19,551,000, including a large addition
to the technical intelligence operation facility, for $11 million.
Mr. Davis, would you have some questions at this point ?
SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS STAFF REPORT ON TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE
OPERATIONS FACILITY
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have had surveys and investigations staff report and I think
that it would be appropriate to have Mr. Nicholas put in the record
pertinent parts of that report here, subject to such comment as you
would like to make in connection with it, General.
[The report follows:]
MAY 18, 1973.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRMAN
Re military construction program for fiscal year 1974.
TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS FACILITY (FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION)
and
FUELS AND LUBRICANTS LABORATORY (AIR FORCE AERO PROPULSION LABORATORY),
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
By directive dated February 22, 1973, the committee requested that inquiry
be made into the requirements and plans for an addition to a technical intelli-
gence operations facility and a fuels and lubricants laboratory at Wright-Pat-
terson Air Force Base, Ohio. These facilities are included in the fiscal year
1974 military construction program for the Air Force.
The inquiry has been completed and the results are included in this report.
Respectfully submitted.
C. R. ANDERSON,
Chief of the Surveys and Investigations Staff,
House Appropriations Committee.
L. R. KIRKPATRICK,
Director, Surveys and Investigations Staff,
House Appropriations Committee.
I. DIRECTIVE
By directive dated February 22, 1973, the committee requested that a study
be made into the requirements and plans for an addition to a technical intelligence
operations facility and a fuels and lubricants laboratory at Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base (W-PAFB), Ohio.
The investigative staff was instructed that its inquiry should include, but not
be limited to, a survey to determine if some or all of this work can be performed
in existing facilities at W-PAFB ; an analysis of the extent to which the research
or operations to be performed are more closely related either to activities at
W-PAFB or to those located elsewhere; the extent to which such research is
being or could be conducted by private industry; the status of design for the
facilities proposed; and the construction schedule for these facilities.
II. TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS FACILITY (FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION),
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO
A. Introduction
The military construction program of the Air Force for fiscal year 1974 in-
cludes a request for the appropriation of $11 million to construct an addition to
a technical intelligence operations facility for the Foreign Technology Division
(FTD) at W-PAFB. The requested project (phase II) involves the construction
of a two-story northeast wing and an addition of a second floor to a northwest
wing.
Phase I was approved and authorized by the Congress for fiscal year 1973,
which provided for the addition of the northwest wing (one floor) to an exist-
ing building.
236
Phase I and II, according to the Aeronautical Systems Division civil engineer-
ing official, would provide space to enable the FTD to consolidate its functions
into a single complex. At the present time, the FTD functions and personnel
are dispersed in 11 buildings, seven of which are considered by the FTD to be
inadequate.
B. Background
At the request of the committee, the investigative staff, during the period
February 14 through February 24, 1972, conducted an inquiry into the phase I
request for the appropriation of $4.7 million to construct an addition (77,280
square feet) to an existing facility at W-PAFB for the FTD of the Air Force
Systems Command (AFSC). The results of the inquiry were incorporated in a
report captioned "Technical Intelligence Operations Facility" which was fur-
nished to the committee on March 15, 1972.
'The investigative staff reported that a comprehensive AFSC-directed study had
been conducted during February 1971 to determine the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of relocating the FTD" to Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. The
AFSO study, considering all aspects, concluded that a relocation was feasible
as well as cost effective, and would not only improve the FTD performance but
also make more productive use of Patrick's underutilized facilities.
During May 1971, the AFSC study was evaluated by Headquarters, Air Force,
and a decision was made to retain FTD at W-PAFB. FTD was informed that
the AFSC study served to highlight the existing facility deficiencies of FTD.
In this regard, Headquarters, Air Force, agreed to support FTD in renewed
efforts to alleviate their deficiencies at W-PAFB. FTD was encouraged to submit
an item for the fiscal year 1973 military construction program.
The decision to retain FTD at W-PAFB was based on an economic evaluation
which concluded that a move to Patrick would be more costly than the con-
struction of comparable facilities at W-PAFB.
Headquarters, Air Force compared the economic aspects of providing the
FTD new facilities at W-PAFB versus a move to Patrick. The determination
was that it would cost $12.10 million to remain at W-PAFB versus $13.87 mil-
lion to move to Patrick, as shown below :
Cost
Remain at W-PAFB : (millions)
Facility construction (300,000 ft) --------------------------------- $9. 50
Facility modifications--------------------------------------- 1.20
Existing facility improvements and repairs----------------------1. 40
Total --------------- --------------- ---------------- 12. 10
Move to Patrick :
Facility modifications---------------------------- ---------------0. 62
Security alarms------------------------------------------------- 1. 36
Equipment move and installation---------------------------------- 3.11
Interim contract support-----------------------------------------1.05
Personnel relocations----------------------------- ---------------7. 73
Total ------------------------------------------------------- 13.87
As it has since developed, the valid cost for the FTD to remain at W-PAFB is
$16.29 million as shown below :
Cost
Remain at WV-PAFB : millions )
Facility construction phase 1 (77,280 ft2) (fiscal year 1973 military
construction program) 1______________________________ $3. 54
Facility construction phase 2 (242,870 fts) (fiscal year 1974 military
construction program) 2--------------------------------------- 11. 00
Rehabilitation-Building 828 (fiscal year 1977 military construction
program) ---------------------------------------------------- 1.05
Rehabilitation-Building 829 (fiscal year 1977 military construction
program) --------------------------------------- .70
Total ------------------------------------------------------ 16. 29
1Although this project was approved and authorized by the Congress at $4,700,000, the
current working estimate is $3,540,000.
2The investigative staff was advised that these projects will be requested in the fiscal
year 1977 military construction program. Both projects represent needs independent of
those identified in phase 1 and of the proposed phase 2 addition.
237
During early 1971, it appeared to be the trend at W-PAFB to overestimate
project costs such as occurred in estimates for the construction of the computer
sciences center, the Air Force Materials Laboratory and the Flight Dynamics
Laboratory. It is, therefore, difficult to perceive how the Air Force underestimated
the 300,000 ft2 facility construction cost used in their economic comparison as a
basis for disapproving the relocation of the FTD.
C. Present foreign technology division space utilization
FTD, during February 1972 was utilizing 356,600 ft2 of space in nine buildings.
The buildings were identified and described in the prior investigative staff report.
FTD is still utilizing these facilities but has acquired some additional area in two
other buildings. The additional area provides 7,000 ft2 of storage space in one
building and 12,800 ft2 of primarily administrative space in an Aeronautical
Systems Division headquarters building.
The FTD's two primary facilities, which are to be the nucleus of the technical
intelligence operations facility complex, provide 139,263 ft2 of space categorized
as adequate. Upon completion of the phase 1 construction (an addition of 77,280
ft ), adequate space will increase to 216,543 ft2. Based on the FTD computed
requirement for 459,413 ft2, the remaining deficiency would be 242,870 ft2. The
proposed fiscal year 1974 military construction program project is designed to
eliminate this deficiency.
The FTD space requirement, stated to be 459,413 ft2, has not changed since
first computed about 1964. The requirement was initially developed as the result
of a study, by contract, conducted for the purpose of determnnining the FTD pro-
jected needs during the 1965-70 timeframe. At the present time, FTD foresees
the need to allocate 220,950 ft2 as special purpose area (space for computers, other
electronic equipment, et cetera, which require either raised flooring or other
special features relating to air-filtering, air-conditioning, and electrical power)
and 238,463 ft2 as administrative space.
Status of the phase 1 fiscal year 1973 military construction program project
On March 30, 1973, a contract was awarded to the firm of Frank Messer & Sons
of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the phase 1 construction of a 77,280 ft2 northwest wing
(one floor). According to an Aeronautical Systems Division official, construction
was expected to begin the week of April 16, 1973. This official estimated a 15-
month construction period. Hopefully, he said, the facility would be available for
occupancy during July 1974.
An FTD official remarked that the July 1974 date was optimistic and suggested
that a completion date of about October 19.74 (an 18-month construction period)
was more realistic. He believed completion in 15 months could be attained only
under optimum construction conditions and barring any unforeseen scheduling
and labor problems or weather delays. The 18-month construction period is con-
sistent with that furnished the investigative staff by a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers official.
The completion date is significant since the phase 2 project proposes adding a
second floor to the phase 1 project both of which will be under construction at
the same time.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that Frank Messer & Sons is
presently involved in the construction of the Air Force Materials Laboratory at
W-PAFB. The investigative staff was advised that this project is only one-third
finished with completion expected about May 1974. Although the contractor will
be involved concurrently in two construction projects, it was stated that no con-
flict in scheduling is expected.
The current working estimate for phase 1 is $3,541,072. Based on the award
of a $3,082,700 contract to Frank Messer & Sons, the estimate was derived as
follows :
Contract ------------------------------------------------$3, 082, 700
Contingency (2 percent) -------------------------------- 61, 654
Subtotal ---------- ----------------------------- 3, 144, 354
Army Corps of Engineers (5 percent) ----------------------------157, 218
Subtotal -------------------------------------------- 3, 301, 572
Known changes-------------------- ------------- 3, 500
Special vault door---------- ----------------------- 25, 000
Central surveillance system----------------------------------- 211, 000
Total -------------------------------------- -- 3, 541, 072
238
The total cost is $L158.928 less than the orieinal cost estimate of $4.7 million
prepared by the Air Force and authorized by the Congress. An Air Force official
remarked that Air Force cost estimates prepared for past authorized projects
at W-PAFB sucl as those for the computer sciences center, the Air Force Mate-
rials Laboratory and Flight Dynamics Laboratory were also considerably higher
than the ultimate total cost of each project.
Another Air Force official assured the investigative staff that the proposed
phase 2 project cost estimate of $11 million is sound, based on their most recent
bid experience for the construction of the phase 1 project.
According to an FTD official, plans have been formulated with regard to the
transfer of functions to the phase 1 addition. Present arrangements provide for
the relocation to it or other FTD facilities of 381 personnel from two buildings
which will be demolished during fiscal year 1975. The space gained by the addi-
tion of phase 1 versus the space lost by vacating two substandard buildings is
negligible.
D. Proposed foreign technology division phase 2 project
On April 12, 1973, the investigative staff was advised that phase 2 design
funds had been made available on March 9, 1973. Negotiations for the design
contract are expected to be resolved sometime during May 1973. The Aeronautical
Systems Division is negotiating with the same architectural and engineering firm
responsible for the design of phase 1.
The design period for phase 1 took 9 months and the same amount of time
is estimated for completing the phase 2 design, notwithstanding the fact that
the project is much larger. According to an Air Force official, the design period
for a project of scope of phase 2 would ordinarily be 12 months.
If negotiations are completed and work on the design is started in May 1973,
the preliminary design should be available during September 1973 with design
completion projected to February 1974. Under this timetable, a contract for the
construction of phase 2 could be awarded during April 1974. Allowing for a
22-month construction period, completion of phase 2 was predicted by March
1976. If the design requires 12 months rather than the estimated 9 months to
complete, the award of a contract, presumably, would be delayed until the
beginning of fiscal year 1975. This possibility, together with other uncertainties
would seem to indicate that the request for funding of the proposed facility is
premature.
Obviously, phase 1 and phase 2 construction would overlap by at least 3 months
and possibly as long as 6 months depending upon the accuracy of the phase 1
construction period estimates. It appears that some complications may arise
particularly since phase 2 requires the addition of a second floor to the phase 1
(first floor northwest wing) project which would still be under construction.
Aeronautical Systems Division officials recognized potential problems in
scheduling construction and keeping the contractors separated; however, the
general tendency was to minimize the significance of these problem areas. It
was suggested that Frank Messer & Sons "might" be low bidder on the phase 1
contract. This firm will be engaged in the construction of phase 1 and should
have almost completed construction of the Air Force Materials Laboratory when
phase 2 bids are opened.
The proposed phase 2 project would be similar in construction to the phase 1
project. It would be of vault-type construction, that is, concrete frame and
prestressed concrete exterior walls. The interior walls would be of concrete
block. Special features would include electronic and physical security systems.
Phase 2 would include a 1,120-ton air-conditioning system valued at $1,624,000,
the cost of which is included in the $11 million request.
239
Construction cost estimates
Building construction: 242,870 fti---------------------------- $10, 116, 000
Supporting facilities :
Electrical ----------------------------------------------- 29, 000
Transformer --------------------------------------------- 81, 000
Water, sanitary, sewer, and heat-------------------------- 228, 000
Storm drainage------------------------ ----- ------------- 29, 000
Site improvement---------------------------------------- 95, 000
Roads, parking, and walks--------------------------------- 197, 000
Special security systems........--------------------------------- 225, 000
Subtotal, supporting facilities---------------------------- .............884, 000
Total -- -------------------------------- 11, 000, 000
B. Personnel
During February 1972, at the time of the investigative staff's prior study,
the FTD assigned personnel strength was 1,686. This included 90 personnel de-
tailed throughout the United States and abroad. The FTD authorized strength
was 1,804 personnel.
An FTD official, on April 11, 1973, advised that the current assigned personnel
strength was down to 1,634. Again, this included those assigned to duties at
places other than W-PAFB. The FTD authorized strength had been reduced to
1,754 personnel. It was claimed that the reductions were the result of an AFSC-
directed cutback which became effective the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1972.
Of the 1,634 assigned personnel, 93 are located away from W-PAFB; 1,509
are housed in the FTD facilities at W-PAFB; and 32 are located in an Aero-
nautical Systems Division headquarters building. The latter 32 personnel, who
provide staff support to the Aeronautical Systems Division, will not be consoli-
dated into the proposed FTD complex. In addition to its own employees, 116
persons representing the custodial force, air police, contractors, communications,
and weather units, et cetera, also occupy space in FTD facilities.
The investigative staff was advised that FTD personnel assigned at W-PAFB,
as of each June 30th, 1969 through 1972, were as follows: 1969, 1,751; 1970,
1,649; 1971, 1,540; and 1972, 1,550.
According to an FTD official, major personnel reductions occurred in fiscal
years 1970 and 1971 which represented the FTD's pro rata share of AFSC-wide
cutbacks and were not the result of any decrease in the FTD workload.
Notwithstanding AFSC-wide personnel reductions during fiscal years 1970,
1971, and 1972, as well as the possibility of future reductions, FTD projects an
authorized level of 1,754 personnel each year through fiscal year 1978.
F. Observations
When FTD was a candidate for relocation to Patrick in Florida, there was
a minimum of concern by personnel involved over leaving the AFSC community
at W-PAFB. There were few, if any, compelling interrelationships between FTD
and other activities at W-PAFB to preclude an FTD relocation. An FTD official
commented that neither the W-PAFB organizations nor other vital customers
throughout the United States would, under modern communication networks,
find FTD any less accessible at another location. Admittedly, the situation is
unchanged: however, any past anxiety caused by not being able to acquire their
total space requirement by relocation has waned due to the authorization of
phase 1 and the anticipated authorization of phase 2.
With the completion of phase 1, FTD plans to evacuate two badly deteriorated
buildings, described as being beyond economical repair and scheduled to be de-
molished in fiscal year 1975. FTD will continue to occupy five buildings described
as inadequate due to crowded conditions and inefficient climatic control. Actually,
upon completion of phase 2, these five structurally sound buildings will revert
back to the base for retention and reassignment.
20-632 0 - 73 - 16
Part of the phase 2 project provides for the addition of a second story to a
section of the phase 1 project now under construction. This would indicate poor
planning on the part of the Air Force, particularly in view of the fact that they
overestimated the cost of the phase 1 facility in the amount of approximately
$1.1 million.
As mentioned previously, the scheduled completion of the phase 1 facility in
May 1974 coupled with the expected initiation of phase 2 construction at the same
site in April 1974 could cause a short period of chaos among the contractors in-
volved. However, a more realistic appraisal of expected progress on phase 2
design and construction efforts would indicate that no serious overlap of the
two projects would occur. In fact, the investigative staff believes that the pre-
dicted design and construction completion dates by the Air Force for phase 2
are rather ambitious and, if gaged on past experience, some slippage should be
expected to occur. With this in xpind, it may be appropriate to further review the
phase 2 design and construction )timetable to determine if the funds request for
this proposed project should be delayed to a later fiscal year.
AIR FORCE COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE FACILITY INVESTIGATION
In connection with the timetable for the construction of the "Technical Intel-
ligence Facility" at Wright-Patterson AFB, there should be no delay in the
planned phase 2 design and construction for the following reasons:
The most critical impact, however, will be the delay in the installation of
special purpose mission equipment programed for fiscal year 1977 and beyond.
Any delay in the fiscal year 1974 MCP facility will necessitate the acquisition and
rehabilitation of some existing facility, probably building No. 280. This would be
an extremely costly (estimate $1.5 to $2 million) interim, and unsatisfactory solu-
tion to the FTD space problem. It would not relieve the current overcrowding,
correct operational difficulties, or reduce the high annual facility maintenance
cost. Therefore, any delay of the fiscal year 1974 MCP will cost an additional
estimated $1.75 to $2.25 million plus the cost of the maintenance required on the
older FTD buildings.
Present design and construction schedules are considered very realistic. The
construction time for phase 1 and the design time for phase 2 are matters of con-
tractural commitment. Taking into account possible unforeseen occurrences, as in
all contracts, these firms committed themselves to their respective completion
time frames. As a result, we consider the design and construction completion
dates to be valid, and fully expect the work to be done on schedule.
Therefore, in addition to the operational disruptions that would be caused by
delaying the approval of phase 2 until the fiscal year 1975 MCP, a contract award
delay of 10 months would be experienced with an accompanying cost growth
factor. This could cost as much as $800,000 based on an annual growth factor of.
10 percent.
In view of the above, we strongly recommend against any delay in the appro-'
of this phase 2 construction.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE FACILITY
Mr. DAVIs. Apparently we are going to start the second floor of this
technical intelligence operation facility, to which the Chairman re-
ferred, before the first floor is completed. Is that correct ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. The foreign technology intelligence opera-
tion facility is being built in two increments. The first increment ap-
proved last year went under contract in March of this year and will be
completed by July of next year. We anticipate that the increment
before the committee in the 1974 program will go under contract
hopefully by next February, just a few months before that first phase
is completed.
If I may show you a picture of the facility, I think there has pos-
sibly been some concern that there would be some conflict in the two
projects proceeding at the same time. I think that I can show you what
is planned. This is a picture shown in green and dark blue of the new
facility. The dark blue portion up to the right is the fiscal year 1973
increment. This is under construction and will be completed a year
from this July. The second increment, which is the second-story addi-
tion to the work now underway, as well as the whole 2-story addition
shown in green, going under contract next February. In terms of work
scheduling, we would anticipate that by the time the 1974 project
goes under contract, the structure would be completed for the initial
increment and the contractor would be doing interior finishing work.
We would also have the 1974 work started with the new 2-story
addition. By the time the work proceeds to that which you see, the
other contractor would be gone. It is also possible that we would have
the same contractor.
Mr. DAVIS. What happened here; did you greatly expand your re-
quirements or your criteria after the 1973 funding was provided to
you? Did you at all times contemplate it was going to be two sepa-
rate bids ?
General REILLY. In justifying the project last year we talked to a
requirement of 320,000 square feet additional space over and above
the existing adequate space you see shown in white. That is principally
to replace substandard outmoded buildings, and we simply phased the
construction over a 2-year period. The requirement has not changed.
Mr. DAVIS. This entire picture was before the committee last year ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DAVIs. Obviously you are going to have to put this out on com-
petitive bidding. What kind of problems do you run into where you
have one contractor on the job and possibly another one comes at the
same general site for a period of 3 months ? Does that create problems ?
General REILLY. We don't see any problem here inasmuch as the first
work will be so far advanced and because of the physical separation
of the two areas. It is fairly common practice to have two buildings
under construction adjacent to each other with different contractors
working.
Mr. DAvis. How do the overall cost estimates which you discussed
with the committee last year compare with what we are talking about
here this morning ?
General REILLY. Sir, when we appeared before the committee last
year, I think I quoted a figure of from $15 million to $17 million as
the anticipated total cost of the project. Our estimate is down to about
$15 million. The favorable bidding that we experienced on the fiscal
year 1973 increment plus our best estimate for 1974 has reduced that.
Actually we are forecasting $14.7 million total now as compared to
something between $15 million and $17 million last year.
Mr. DAvIs. Your funding for the current fiscal year was how much?
General REILLY. $4.7 million was approved by the committee last
year.
Mr. DAVIS. You now anticipate that you will get the work done for
how much ?
General REILLY. Our best estimate now, based on low bid and with
the necessary overhead and contingencies, is about $3.7 million. We
saved considerably over the programed amount. That savings has been
reflected in the cost estimate we now have before the committee. The
construction costs at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, just a few
years ago, one of the highest cost ,areas we were experiencing, has
been very difficult to predict in the last year or so. There has been a
reversal in that trend both in the large materials laboratory, which we
put under contract not too long ago, and in the recent bidding on this
project.
Mr. NICHOLAS. If we may go back to the question of the overlap of
the construction schedules, according to the investigative staff report
the overlap could be from 3 to 6 months based on the schedule for the
design of the second phase of this facility.
There is the implication here that you would expect the contrac-
tors to get in each other's way. Furthermore the slippage of one project
would throw off the schedule in the second increment and increase the
second contractor's cost in a way he could not control ?
Yet you are saying that you don't anticipate any problem?
General REILLY. Mr. Nicholas, we don't see any problem at the
present time. We have about 35 percent of the design completed on the
new project. We have confidence in the schedule that we will have
this design complete certainly by the first of the calendar year; assum-
ing that we get our appropriations in the late fall.
I don't see why we cannot make it a February or early March
award. As I stated earlier, by that time the present contractor should
have the structure complete and simply be finishing with interior work.
Again, we will start the new construction down in the area to the left
so it would be a number of months before we would even be adding the
second story to the fiscal year 1973 increment.
Mr. NICHOLAS. How can you be sure this won't pose any problem
to the second man? Are you planning on the same contractor as on
phase 1
General REILLY. NO, sir. Many times ,a contractor mobilized onsite
is in a position to offer a lower bid. In other instances a new contractor
will come in and completely underbid.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You don't have problems with two contractors onsite
at the same time ?
General REILLY. No, sir, we don't see any major problem here at all.
Mr. NICHOLAS. COuld you provide some examples where this sit-
uation has existed in recent years ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The major facilities which were programed, authorized and constructed in
phases are the Air Force Academy, NORAD Underground Combat Operations
Center and Peterson Field Utilities. These projects were all awarded with each
increment being a separate award. The Air Force has encountered no unusual
problems in these experiences with phased construction.
[Editor's note: There were major cost problems at both the Air
Force Academy and the NORAD Command Center.]
COST TO MOVE TO PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE
Mr. DAVIS. Provide up-to-date figures on what it would have cost
to move to Patrick Air Force Base and what it is costing to stay at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
243
[The information follows:]
The updated costs are as follows:
To stay at Wright-Patterson Air Force Bese: Millions
New facility phase I fiscal year 1973 MCP----------------------$3. 54
New facility phase II fiscal year 1974 MCP---------------------- 11. 00
Total ------------- -------------------------------- 14. 54
To move to Patrick Air Force Base:
Facility modifications ------------------------------------------ .62
Security alarms -------------------------------------------- 1. 36
Equipment move/installation ------ -------------------------- 3.11
Interim contractor support-------- ------------------------- . 05
Personnel relocations ------------ -------------------------- 7. 73
Subtotal (cost last year's study) --------------------------- 13.87
Increase of 7 percent for inflation--------------------------------- .97
Relocate AFTAC and other activities ------------------------------ 1. 30
Total ---------- ------------------------------------ 16.14
The Wright-Patterson cost does not include $1.75 million for rehabilitation
of buildings Nos. 828 and 829 mentioned in the survey and investigations staff
report of May 1973, as this work is not proposed at this time. The Patrick cost
of $13.87 million also mentioned in the staff report is from last year's study and
has to be increased conservatively by about 7 percent for inflation. The Patrick
cost must also be increased to reflect the current situation at the base. The Air
Force Technical Applications Center (AFTAC) has moved into the only facility
capable of accommodating a major portion of the FTD. Other facilities on base
would have to be modified for AFTAC and other activities would have to be
relocated on base to accommodate AFTAC at a cost of $1.3 million.
The Air Force confirms its original decision to remain at Wright-Patterson
AFB. The move to Patrick is not justified because of the large unrecoverable cost
expenditure at Patrick versus acquisition of a prime facility asset at Wright-Pat-
terson and the personnel turbulence which would result from the move. This
turbulence would include loss of skilled workers who would not move to Patrick
and reduced productivity during recruitment and training of new empoyees.
TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE SPACE REQUIRED
Mr. DAVIS. Provide a breakout of space in the total technical intelli-
gence facility by type.
[The information follows:]
The functional breakout of space in the technical intelligence facility follows:
TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE FACILITY SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Area (SF)
Existing adequate Fiscal year 1973 Fiscal year 1974 Total
Type function Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net
Administrative....------------- 26, 100 16, 900 8,900 8, 400 24,600 18,400 59, 600 43,700
Technical----------------... 14,700 8,800 9,800 8,300 82, 800 68, 200 107, 300 85,300
Administrative support...... 18, 000 9,700 16,300 16, 300 7, 300 6, 000 41,600 32, 000
Special purpose-----..-------........ 64,900 38, 900 27,500 21,100 101,100 87,300 193,500 147,300
Service areas-------------............... 15,500 ----------14,800 ----------27,100 ----------57, 400---
Total --------------139,200 74, 300 77,300 54,100 242,900 i179,900 459,400 308, 300
Note: Net area is building space actually occupied by personnel or equipment. Gross area is halls, stairways, toilets
utility rooms type space.
Mr. DAVIs. The requirement is given here as 459,513 square feet.
When was that established ?
244
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. The initial requirement was first established
back in 1965. The first increment of the building that was proposed got
up to Congress, in 1968, and was deferred. That was for a lesser in-
crement than we are now proposing. I believe it had 229,000 square
feet in it. The requirement has been verified and established and sup-
ported by DOD. DIA has supported us in this requirement through
the years. The requirement is still a justifiable level.
Mr. DAVIS. 459,000 square feet ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Yes, sir.
Mr. DAVIS. When was that set ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. The initial requirement was in the 1965
time period.
General REILLY. 459,000 established at that time?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Yes, sir.
General REILLY. It has remained there.
Mr. DAVIs. The question then comes up as to whether that is still
a valid requirement, especially in the light of the fact that we are in
a time of personnel reductions.
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. There is another study made in the 1970-71
time period when we were considering the move. This figure was again
validated as the total requirement.
Mr. DAVIS. Most of our personnel reductions have taken place since
that time, haven't they ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Sir, when the Air Force's financial plan
was updated on January 26, 1970, FTD was authorized 1,726 per-
sonnel. They are still authorized approximately, as of May, 1,759
personnel. The tech facility is one of the most important within the
Air Force intelligence community. While we have sustained substan-
tial reductions throughout Intelligence, the S. & T. portion has been
favorably considered because of its importance.
Mr. DAVIS. You gave us those latest personnel figures. How does
that compare with the number of personnel we were talking about at
the time this space requirement was set ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. I don't have that figure offhand. In 1964,
when I was first assigned there, they had a personnel strength of about
1,100. They continued to grow until this 1968 time period and then
they have leveled off pretty much from 1969 on. They are projected
to retain a level of about 1,725 out through the 1978 time period.
Mr. DAVIS. Provide for the record your anticipated personnel for the
next 5 years.
'[The information follows:]
SAT INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
The anticipated Wright Patterson AFB, Foreign Technology Division person-
nel for the next 5 years-fiscal year 1974-79-is 1,781.
Mr. DAVIs. You say you will use five buildings for other base require-
ments. Provide details as to exactly what use will be made of these
buildings.
.[The information follows:]
USE OF EXISTING INTELLIGENCE BUILDINGS AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON
The following is a breakdown by building of the planned use for the space to
be released by the FTD and returned to the host command:
Total
building
FTD scope scope Planned use/remarks
Building No.:
10280....-............... 50, 861 "124, 174 FTD space to revert to plant data processing.
10861---------------.... 3, 794 3,794 Supply and issue shop.
10867---....----------- - 24,773 24,773 Communications group for combined administrative
and storage use.
30219------------------- 33,124 33, 124 USAF medical center for medical food inspection and
area dental lab.
30259-------------------- 24,158 24,158 Air base group headquarters for base procurement
office. This will result in disposal of building No. 120
(13,950 sq. ft.) currently occupied by Procurement.
"Other current users of this building are data processing and micro film, records depository, command
equipment storage and warehouse.
AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT RESEARCH FACILITY
Mr. DAVIS. There is a request here for $1,887,000 for alteration to
what you call an aircraft engine component research facility. Is that
just a fancy name for a wind tunnel ?
General REILLY. No, sir. May I call on Colonel Stanton to explain
this.
Colonel STANTON. Although this facility is somewhat similar to an
open-loop wind tunnel in its outward configuration and operation, it
is basically a 30,000-horsepower test stand with associated air inlet
and exhaust ducting elements. This stand drives a test compressor,
and unlike a wind tunnel, the only source of airflow is generated by
the compressor being tested. The 30,000-horsepower test stand is in
existence at Wright-Patterson.
With regard to an actual wind tunnel configuration, if it is running
at full capacity, it would not be suitable for compressor testing in the
transient mode. The intertia of the air moving machinery precludes
the development of transient conditions for testing.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Will this all be environmentally controlled? Will
you have to supply the type of atmosphere in which you expect the
compressor to be operating ?
Colonel STANTON. This is a sea level test stand. Through mechanical
throttling techniques, the airframe can be controlled to aerodynam-
ically simulate altitude conditions and conditions of maneuverability
which the compressor would experience if installed in an aircraft in
flight.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Will the temperature be controlled ?
Colonel STANTON. When you map a compressor, the compressor
performance map is produced with airflow corrected or normalized to
sea level or normal atmospheric conditions including pressure and
temperature. As far as the compressor is concerned, under these cor-
rected conditions, it cannot aerodynamically discriminate between
changes in environment due to altitude.
General RFILLY. Our present testing facilities are only static. It is
being able to provide this realistic environment which the engine actu-
ally experiences in flight that is so important. We have a picture to
show of a turbine engine.
Mr. NICHOLAS. There is no requirement to provide a wind drive to
this thing or exhaust dissipation?
Colonel STANTON. The total air movement is provided by the 30,-
000-horsepower test stand driving the test turbofan or compressor.
Mr. DAVIs. Do we have anything like this in existence at the present
time ?
Colonel STANTON. No, sir, there is no capability for this transient-
type testing in the free world.
General REILLY. Referring to the picture of a turbine engine the
compressor is on the front of the engine. The jet engine has four
principal parts to it: The compressor at the front end; the combus-
tion chamber, the turbine, and the exhaust nozzle at the rear end.
There is a pressure differential created between the front and back of
the engine which develops the thrust. The blades that you see in the
front make up the compressor region. It is that component of the
engine which we desire to research in this facility and to hopefully
eliminate many of the problems associated with compressors that we
now have in our engines. This continues to be one of the most trouble-
some areas in the jet engine; that is, compressor instability phenomena
that occurs.
ROLE OF ENGINE MANUFACTURERS IN COMPRESSOR DEVELOPMENT
Mr. SIKES. This wouldn't be the responsibility of the manufacturer
to seek a cure for these problems ?
Colonel STANTON. The manufacturer effectively has a responsibility
to deliver an end product with overall performance standards estab-
lished by the Air Force specifications. This is a complex piece of
machinery and any one of the integral portions of that complex piece
of machinery can malfunction and effectively render the end article
below specifications. We have frequently experienced compressor in-
stabilities in the development of engines throughout the history of the
Air Force.
We have some rather sordid history with regard to the technology
associated with that. We do not really fully understand what basically
goes on engineeringwise inside a compressor. To compensate we have
built effectively a body of knowledge and experience and we use edu-
cated fixes, if you will, when we run into these kinds of phenomena.
Mr. SIKES. If the manufacturers were producing a product that did
not measure up to standards and expectations, the public wouldn't buy
it. Mr. Nader would have complained. Why are you buying this one?
Colonel STANTON. I would like not to reflect that industry delivers
jet engines that are faulty to the Air Force. That is an improper con-
notation. What we are saying is that we have run into problems that
require expensive fixes because we have not the technological base and
design criteria with which to build a better compressor.
Mr. SIKES. Do no commercial aviation engines encounter the same
problems that you are encountering?
Colonel STANTON. Yes, sir, they do, because both the military and
commercial aircraft engines are developed by the same industrial
corporations.
Mr. SIKES. What do they do about these shortcomings?
Colonel STANTON. Unlike the military aircraft, they are not sub-
jected to rapid acceleration and deceleration under wartime combat
conditions-afterburner lightoffs and these sort of things. They don't
experience the harsh type of environment that the military air-
craft do.
One comment I would like to make. As a result of not having a
proper body of compressor technology knowledge, we effectively
penalize overall performance of that engine. Currently, we map the
compressor in a static condition to determine its surge or stall line.
This facility will map the compressor in a dynamic condition. Due
to the unknown difference between static and dynamic mapping, we
can effectively move by the design and the surge point of that com-
pressor so that we effectively have a margin of safety against stalling.
It would be the same effect as running your automobile with excessive
gasoline consumption and poor mileage. We are really penalizing the
potential efficiency of that engine.
Mr. SIKES. You speak intelligently and effectively on the subject,
but the thought still persists that the competition for the manufacture
of these engines should have included the correction of such problems
as this.
Colonel STANTON. I could provide historical examples of the kind
of problems that we have and the kind of fixes that were not totally
successful. The J-67 is a case in point and it provided power for the
Century fleet.
Mr. SIKES. Are you saying that the correction of the problem is
beyond the state of the art at this time and you are still having to
grope for a cure ?
Colonel STANTON. Yes, sir; that is exactly what I am stating. I am
stating that this type of research capability in the United States would
be a tremendous asset. It would provide a proper body of knowledge
to eliminate technological risk and reduce expensive retrofit and cor-
rection problems for the Air Force in the future.
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, I don't think industry has put or
has wanted to put the large investment forward that it takes to analyze
this phenomenon or this problem that has restricted the military use
of the jet engine.
Mr. SIKES. The military use of the jet engine is a major use. It means
a lot of work for manufacturers, and I confess that I am still puzzled
by the fact that they seem to have done nothing to correct this type
of problem.
Colonel STANTON. I would say "nothing" is an improper connotation.
Industry, the engine manufacturers, have and use static compressor
test facilities during the design and development of their engines. The
problems that we find in engine operation are not in a static condition
wherein the inlet temperatures, air flows and everything is stabilized.
It is under such dynamic conditions as takeoff, rapid climb, decelera-
tion, rocket firing, afterburner light-off that compressor problems
occur. All these things induce transient phenomena inside that com-
pressor which there is no ground capability to simulate at the present
time.
248
LOCATION FOR COMPRESSOR TESTING
Mr. SIKES. Is this the only place where the kind of test that you
propose will be done ?
Colonel STANTON. Sir, we propose it should be done in a Govern-
ment installation. As you have intimated the Air Force must be in a
position to really understand, to guide the technology, and if, when
engines are developed and run into trouble, to be able to come up with
the necessary technological knowledge to direct fixes and to be able to
evaluate a contractor's product prior to making a further development
or procurement decision.
Mr. NICHOLAS. How closely is this related to the research function
and how closely is it related to fixes at the time an engine is being
tested? Are the types of skilled personnel, mathematicians, people
familiar with the transient states of this thing, really located at
Wright-Patterson or are they located at the places where you are test-
ing these engines, where. experts in testing engines are located ?
Colonel STANTON. It is a function of the mission. The responsibility
for the advancement, understanding, and direction of aerospace pro-
pulsion technology is the military mission of the Air Force Aerospace
Propulsion Laboratory at Wright-Patterson. These people are the
technical experts that monitor the industrial propulsion capability,
direct that capability, determine the investigative studies and the
technological advancements that must be made.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Where are the people who really know how to ana-
lyze the results from wind tunnels and who know what does happen in
a test engine when it malfunctions ?
Colonel STANTON. These people assigned to the laboratory have the
responsibility of monitoring both on site and off site the kind of test-
ing that we are talking about here. As such, they have the expertise re-
quired to both produce and analyze the data.
General REILLY. Those people are at Wright-Patterson in the Pro-
pulsion Laboratory.
Mr. NICHrOLAS. Do they travel down to Tullahoma where engines
are tested ?
General REILLY. Tullahoma runs tests and the data comes back to
the user.
Mr. SIKES. Why is it not all done in one place ?
Colonel STANTON. Arnold Engineering and Development Center
(AEDC) also has propulsion expertise and data analysis capability,
but they do not have the mission responsibility of guiding the ad-
vancement of Air Force propulsion technology. They are a service
agency. They provide and operate aerospace environmental facilities
and provide data to the customer.
Mr. NICHOLAs. Where are the experts and people who know what
happens when you put a certain engine in certain situations? Are the
people who have the mathematical and analytical ability located at
Tullahoma ?
You said they provide the data but do they make a sophisticated
analysis of the data instead of providing raw data ?
Colonel STRANTON. AEDC does not normally provide a thorough
and complete analysis of the data. AEDC produces raw data, reduces
them and publishes a test report for the user. Those data are provided
to the Propulsion Laboratory or other customers.
Mr. SIKES. Why don't you combine these operations at one facility ?
It seems there is inevitably ,duplication when you are doing the same
kind of work, at least in part, at two different places.
Colonel STANTON. Sir, let me make clear that this test capability
does not exist. We are not doing the same kind of work at two different
places. Second, I would like to reiterate that the responsibility for
advancing the propulsion technology is in the mission of the Aerospace
Propulsion Laboratory at Wright-Patterson. Therefore, they will gen-
erate their own research data and utilize it to further the technology.
Mr. SIKES. Where does Tullahoma come into the operation ?
Colonel STANTON. Tullahoma, in current Air Force planning, does
not come into the operation.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Provide for the record a list of the people and their
job descriptions who are employed in this lab. Also provide a list of
the people in related areas in Tullahoma. Show, for instance, whether
they are mathematicians or metallurgists, what their job may be, and
their Federal job description category.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force Aeropropulsion Laboratory (AFAPL) at Wright-Patterson AFB
is manned with 404 people, 355 civilians and 49 military. Of these 404 people, 225
are scientific and engineering personnel, 99 are technicians and 80 are adminis-
trative and clerical personnel. The assigned mission of the laboratory is to plan,
formulate, present, and execute the USAF exploratory and advanced develop-
ment programs in the areas of airbreathing propulsion, power generation, air-
craft fuels and lubrication, and aircraft fire protection.
The turbine Engine Division of this laboratory directs programs of explora-
tory, advanced, and engine developments for prototype aircraft to advance the
technical potential of turbo-propulsion systems. There are 85 people assigned to
this division, 73 of which are scientists and engineers.
The components branch of this division conceives and conducts programs to en-
hance the technological capability of turbo-propulsion systems through analyses,
design study, development, and test of major engine components, controls and
diagnostics systems and check out techniques. There are presently 15 laboratory
people directly involved with turbofan and compressor research and development.
Eleven of these are aerospace engineers; three are electrical engineers; and
one is a mechanical engineer.
It should be made clear that this group is supported technically by other or-
ganizations within the laboratory such as technicians and computer programers/
operators. Very closely allied in presenting an integrated technical capability are
personnel in the engine development branch, performance branch, and propulsion
branch of this same division, as well as personnel in the Fuels and Lubrication
Division.
The Commander of AEDC has an Air Force staff or approximately 250 military
and civilian personnel who plan and schedule work, establish priorities, and
supervise the accomplishment of the contractor (ARO, Inc.). The contractor is
also responsible to the Air Force for the management, operation and maintenance
of the entire station. ARO, Inc., has approximately 3,100 personnel employed to
carry out this function. Of this total number approximately 750 are assigned to
the engine test facility (ETF). The ETF's basic mission is to perform evaluation
testing at simulated environmental conditions of all types of propulsion systems.
This includes rocket as well as airbreathing engine testing. The breakdown of
these ETF personnel is: 258 scientists and engineers; 376 technicians; 76 engi-
neering aides; and 37 administrative. The scientists and engineers include: 93
mechanical, 51 aeronautical and 53 electrical engineers. The remaining 61 in-
cludes: Mathematicians, metallurgists, chemists, and so forth. These personnel
prepare the test facility and test articles for testing, operate the 16 test cells,
make measurements, reduce data and prepare the test reports.
Although there are numerous highly qualified engineering personnel specifically
talented in the airbreathing engine testing area they are not specifically oriented
toward the advancement or development of compressor technology for the Air
Force.
[Additional information appears in the appendix to this volume.]
Mr. DAVIS. Tell us, also, for the record, how many personnel are in-
volved in this research program at this time? How many will be in-
volved when the new facility becomes operational ?
[The information follows:]
There are currently 15 personnel involved. By the end of the fiscal year 1978
there will be a total of 50, 29 of which will be involved directly with CRF
operation.
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, I think a key point here is that,
speaking of alternate locations, the facility does not exist at Arnold or
anywhere else to do this work. They would have to be either modified
or built from scratch.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You do have the necessary drive motors ?
General REILLY. Yes; they are part of the Aerospace Propulsion
Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. This deals with air-
breathing engines as opposed to rocket engines.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you have the same number of these types of
things, drive motors and building spaces, as you do at Arnold ?
General REILLY. Yes. The Aerospace Propulsion Laboratory has a
unique drive installation which was used for propellers. It is an adap-
tation of that system which permits this facility to be easily con-
structed at Wright-Patterson. This drive stand, together with mil-
lions of dollars invested in other facility resources, will be used. There
is no drive mechanism at Arnold comparable to what we have at
Wright-Patterson for this particular test function.
Mr. SIKES. General, let me say that I continue to be impressed by
the expertise of the witnesses that the Air Force has brought for this
hearing.
General REILLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SIKES. They don't always convince me, but I am impressed.
Mr. DAVIS. Is the Navy involved in something similar to this?
Colonel STANTON. The Navy at the present time does no compressor
testing. They contract all work in this area.
General REILLY. They have a problem and they are extremely in-
terested in what we propose.
Colonel STANTON. We share approximately three engine manu-
facturers in the United States, so we have common problems.
Mr. DAVIs. Are there any other questions on this particular facility
at Wright-Patterson ?
FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY INTELLIGENCE FACILITY
Mr. LONG. Not on this particular facility, but I have a question on
the intelligence operation.
Mr. DAVIS. Go ahead if you want to ask about that.
Mr. LONG. What is this intelligence? What kind of intelligence is
involved ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. This is the aerospace scientific and tech-
nical intelligence activity for the total DOD. The FTD-Foreign
Technology Division of Air Systems Command-supported by DOD
in this area. This takes care of the total spectrum of aerospace, science,
and technology from the basic technologies, foreign technology, from
the basic electronics and metallurgy right on up to the most sophis-
ticated.
Mr. LONG. This analyzes what other countries are doing ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. In aviation technology ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Correct. Their mission is to see to it we
don't get a technological surprise in the aerospace spectrum.
Mr. LONG. What about tactical operations; what the enemy is going
to do in a particular tactical situation ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. NO, sir. Only so far as the capability of the
weapons system. The design capability of the weapons system. The
tactics to be employed do not fall within their area.
Mr. LONG. Is this to find out what the North Vietnamese are going
to do if you send a flight over ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. NO, sir. They can tell you what equipment
they have and what the capability of that is.
Mr. LONG. So it is purely technical ?
Colonel SCHAFFUAUSET. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. What about intelligence so far as the activities of the
people are concerned, such as the kind of thing going on at Holabird;
do you have anything like that going on ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. NO, sir. They are primarily-
Mr. LONG. No, I want to know-not primarily. I understand what
you are talking about, but do you have any intelligence work going on
in which you are investigating, keeping track of people, bugging them ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. NO, sir.
Mr. LONG. You are not keeping any files on civilians or political
people ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Americans?
Mr. LONG. That is right.
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. NO, sir. None at all; we couldn't really give
you a good run on the American system. They are concerned with
forpnin systems.
Mr. LONG. I understand what your primary interest is. I want to
find out if there are any files kept on any people in this country about
what their loyalties are.
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. None at all. They are not involved in that.
Mr. LONG. You have nothing to compare with what the Army was
doing at Fort Holabird ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. NO, sir. They are aware of experts like they
know that the leading authority in aerodynamics is maybe someone
from-
Mr. LONG. I am talking about loyalty.
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Nothing like that at all.
Mr. LONG. What are the increasing mission requirements which
justify the addition ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Sir, in general the mission requirements
have increased because of the sophistication of our collection systems.
The increase in the bulk or magnitude of our tape.
TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE SQUARE FOOTAGE PER MAN
Mr. LONG. I am a little puzzled as to the square footage here. You
have 242.000 sanare feet here. That is about 6 acres in the intelligence
center alone. When added to what you already have, what does that
bring it up to?
Generally REILLY. 459,000 total requirement.
Mr. LONG. That is about 12 acres?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. Something over 10 acres.
Mr. LONG. The number of people involved in this thing is how
many?
General REILLY. Something over 1,700 people.
Mr. LONG. Not 17,000 ?
General REILLY. 1,700.
Mr. LONG. Isn't that an enormous amount of square footage for
1,700 people?
General REILLY. Sir, we would have to give you some details on
that. There is a great deal of equipment involved in this building as
opposed to pure administrative space. That is people with desks.
About 209,000 square feet, special purpose, which is principally
equipment. 193,000 square feet and about 57,000 square feet of serv-
ice area. I think it is the space required for special equipment and
special purposes that accounts for the large gross.
Mr. LONG. That is 300 square feet per person. That is quite large.
This is more than the square footage I have run into in any proposed
military structure.
General REILLY. The bulk of those people would only be confined
to a certain area of the building.
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. This is pretty close to half of it for special-
purpose equipment; 193,000 square feet for special-purpose equipment.
Mr. LONG. Such as what ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. There are computers and all of the elec-
tronic gear to reduce data, data reduction processing.
Mr. LONG. Most structures have rooms not for people but for
equipment.
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Not in that proportion. Not in nearly that
proportion. They have a machine translations section for their open-
source literature exploitation.
Mr. LONG. I understand that, but I am still asking why you need
so much space per person. This is a fabulous space requirement per
person.
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. You take away 200,000 square feet for the
equipment, that leaves you about 208,000 or so.
Mr. LONG. That still leaves you 150 square feet per person. Isn't
that quite a bit ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. Yes, sir. But we have not taken out the
special service activities, hallways, and all of this other space involved.
Mr. LONG. How does that compare with a moderate installation ?
Colonel SCHAFFHAUSER. I will have to refer to somebody in the Civil
Engineers.
General REILLY. We build about 150 square feet gross per person.
Straight administrative space. That breaks down so that a worker
should have about 80 to 90 square feet of net office area, exclusive of the
equipment.
Mr. LONG. Assuming that half of it is for equipment, that works out
about right.
General REILLY. That is right.
Mr. LONG. I think that covers it. Thank you.
Mr. DAVIs. In response to a staff question, you said an assessment
of "all factors involved" leads you to the conclusion that Wright-Pat-
terson Air Force Base is the optimum location for this facility. Provide
the committee a copy of the study in which you considered all factors.
[The information follows:]
Numerous analyses by responsible staff and operating personnel validated
the requirement of this facility to be sited as a research tool that enables the
aeropropulsion laboratory to accomplish its mission of turbine engine R. & D.
Extensive engineering and technical discussions, detailed coordination with
AEDC, and the economics of location precluded the need for further indepth
examination. Thus a formal study was not made. AEDC concurred in the loca-
tion of the compressor research facility at Wright-Patterson by letter dated
August 1971.
Mr. DAVIS. That brings us down to the Air Force lubricants labora-
tory.
The committee is adjourned until 2 o'clock.
[After a brief recess the committee reconvened at the call of the
Chair.]
Mr. SIXES. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Davis.
SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS STAFF REPORT ON FUELS AND LUBRICANTS
LABORATORY
Mr. DAVIS. We had reached the aircraft fuels and lubricants labora-
tory, Mr. Chairman. The request for that is $4,857,000. We have had
a staff report on this project as well. We will ask Mr. Nicholas to insert
the pertinent portions of that staff report in the record.
[The information follows:]
III. FUELS AND LUBRICANTS LABORATORY (AIR FORCE AERO PROPULSION LABORA-
TORY) WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO
Introduction
The military construction program of the Air Force for fiscal year 1974 in-
cludes a request for the appropriation of $4,857,000 to construct a fuels and
lubricants laboratory in area B at Wright-Patterson AFB. The requested project
would house the fuels lubrication and fire protection division of the Air Force
Aero Propulsion Laboratory (AFAPL). Most of the division's laboratory effort,
which is currently dispersed in a number of buildings, would be consolidated into
the proposed facility.
Background
The aeronautical systems division and seven Air Force laboratories, including
the AFAPL ,are concentrated in area B at Wright-Patterson AFB.
The AFAPL is responsible for the development, through exploratory and ad-
vanced development programs, of air breathing propulsion systems and aero-
space power systems for current and future aircraft systems. The AFAPL is
organized functionally into a turbine engine division; ramjet engine division;
aerospace power division; fuels, lubrication, and fire protection division; and
technical facilities division.
It is the responsibility of the fuels, lubrication, and fire protection division
to develop aerospace fuels and lubricants with improved high temperature
characteristics; develop test techniques for determining high temperature fuel
and lubricant characteristics; develop advanced lubrication techniques; develop
advanced bearing and gear concepts and to also develop a hazard protection
capability for the effective prevention and control of fire and explosion associated
wii h flight vehicle combustibles.
As far back as March 1967, the division has projected a total space require-
ment of 93,000 square feet which included 68,000 square feet of new construction
254
(a fiscal year 1969 military construction program request subsequently deleted
by OSD), and the retention of 25,000 square feet of existing laboratory space.
Currently, the total requirement is 96,920 square feet of space. The requirement
was derived as follows:
Facility asset summary
Square feet
Proposed facility--------- ------ ----------------------------68, 250
Existing facilities retained -------- ------------------------ - 28, 670
Total space required------- ------------------------ 96, 920
Presently occupied facilities--------------------------------- 74, 638
Net change I (plus) ------------------------------------- 22, 282
1 The net change is discussed further under section F.
Quantitative data appearing on the DD form 1391 regarding the proposed
project sets forth, incorrectly, the total requirement as 68,250 square feet and
the existing substandard space as 74,638 square feet. It should be as follows:
Square feet
Total requirement---------- -------------------------------- 96, 920
Existing substandard----------------------------- ------------- 45, 968
Existing adequate------------------------------- ---------------- 28, 670
Deficiency --------------- --------------------------------- 68,250
During 1967, preparatory to the submission of a fiscal year 1969 military
construction program request for a fuels and lubricants research facility, the
practicability of relocating this activity to a site other than W-PAFB was
considered and rejected. An internal staff study performed by the Technical Fa-
cilities Division of AFAPL concluded that relocation to another site was im-
practical due to the excessive cost of relocation; loss of technical capability,
research time, and management competence as a result of expected personnel
losses; and nullification not only of technical interface with other activities
but effectiveness of a centralized management environment which exists at
W-PAFB.
The following tabulation comparing cost of a relocation was set forth in the
staff study :
W-PAFB location
Facility construction (68,000 square feet)----------------------- $2,969, 000
Essential associated facilities :
(1) Retained space (25,000 square feet)_____________________ (1)
(2) Six static test stands _________________________________.. ()
(3) Fuel tank farms (89,000 gal.) __________________________ (1)
(4) Environmental aging facility_______________________ _ (1)
(5) Engine assembly and inspection shop--------------------- (1)
(6) Low temperature facility ____________---------------- (1)
(7) Installed utilities and services___________________________ (1)
Total _ ---------------------------------------------- 2,969,000
Other location
Facility construction (93,000 square feet) ------------------------ 3, 870,000
Essential associated facilities:
(1) Three static test stands and fuel tank farm (350,000 gal.) -__ 6, 100, 000
(2) Environmental aging facility_____________________________ 160, 000
(3) Engine assembly and inspection shop--------------------_ 250, 000
(4) Low temperature facility _______________________________ 900, 000
Total __ ________------------------------------------------- 11,290,000
1 Available.
SIt was noted that this figure does not include utilities and services, personnel move-
ments, and equipment relocation costs.
The study did not specify the other location. In the opinion of the investigative
staff, if the Arnold Engineering Development Center site in Tennessee had been
considered, relocation costs would have been considerably less due to the avail-
ability there of some essential associated facilities, particularly the costly engine
test stands.
255
C. Present fuels, lubrication, and fire protection division facilities
The buildings now utilized by the Division provide 74,638 gross square feet
space of which 14,648 square feet are accounted for by walls, corridors, rest-
rooms, mechanical equipment rooms, and so forth. The remaining area is com-
posed of 52,256 square feet of laboratory and support space with only 7,734 square
feet devoted to administrative space.
Condition codes are assigned to the buildings occupied. The assignment of the
codes is based on inspection and structural investigations by a W-PAFB civil
engineer. The codes are as follows: Condition code 1-Usable, generally meets
criteria; Condition code 2-Usable, upgrading required and practical; and
Condition code 3-Cannot practically be raised to usable standards.
BUILDING 18 (CONDITION CODE 2)
The original building was constructed in 1928 with sections added in 1944.
The Division occupies only parts of this building. A fuel lubricity laboratory, fire
detection laboratory, and Division offices utilize an area of 6,805 gross square
feet, which provides 4,045 net square feet of laboratory and support space and
2,100 net square feet of administrative space, respectively.
BUILDING 42 (CONDITION CODE 2)
This building was constructed in 1943. Two entire sections and part of a third
section provide an area totaling 11,341 gross square feet of which 7,568 net square
feet are devoted to laboratory and support space and 799 net square feet to ad-
ministrative space. These sectional facilities house an aircraft fuel system simu-
lator, a fuel filtration laboratory, and an endothermic fuel catalyst laboratory.
BUILDING 48 (CONDITION CODE 2)
This building was constructed in 1942. It provides an area of 2,368 gross
square feet of which 1,934 net square feet are devoted to laboratory and support
space and 192 net square feet for administrative space. The facility houses an
inactive fuel tank slosh and vibration test rig.
BUILDING 59 (CONDITION CODE 2)
This building was constructed in 1943. Two sections provide an area of 14,000
gross square feet of which 11,845 net square feet are devoted to laboratory and
support space and 785 net square feet to administrative space. The sections house
lubricant test rigs and a fuel thermal stability laboratory.
BUILDING 62 (CONDITION CODE 1)
This building was constructed in 1942. It provides an area of 3,465 gross square
feet of which 2,587 net square feet are devoted to laboratory and support space
and 248 net square feet to administrative space. This building serves as a lubricant
analysis laboratory.
BUILDING 70 (CONDITION CODE 2)
This building was constructed in 1942. The Division occupies an area of 12,289
gross square feet of which 6,452 net square feet are devoted to laboratory and
support space and 3,610 net square feet to administrative space. The facility is
utilized as a fuels analysis and rheology laboratory and contains Jcientific and
engineering offices for the fuels and lubricants branches.
BUILDING 71-B (CONDITION CODE 2)
The original building was constructed in 1942 for engine 'test stands. The Divi-
sion utilizes an area of 22.745 gross square feet of which 16,310 net square feet is
devoted to laboratory and support space in connection with hazardous tests for
the fire protection branch. The remainder of space is a gunfire test setup area.
BUILDING 71-D (CONDITION CODE 2)
This building was constructed in 1944. It provides an area of 290 gross square
feet and is used as a fuel hotroom to check the aging effects on fuel.
20-632 0 - 73 - 17
256
BUILDING 352 (CONDITION CODE 2)
This building was constructed in 1959. It provides an area of 1,335 gross square
feet and is used for fuel cold storage.
In the event the requested project is approved and authorized. the Fuels,
Lubrication, and Fire Protection Division proposes as follows: (1) Retain only
600 square feet in building 1 for Division offices; (2) retain 12,000 square feet in
building 59 for bearing test rigs; (3) retain 14,445 square feet in building 71-B
for hazardous tests; (4) retain the 290 square feet in building 71-D as a fuel
hotroom; and (5) retain the 1.335 square feet in building 352 as fuel cold storage,
The total area planned for retention would be 28,670 square feet; the balance
of 45.968 square feet would be released for reassignment. It is proposed that
equipment in the released facilities be relocated in the requested laboratory. One
exception would be the reassignment to the Aeronautical Systems Division of the
fuel tank slosh and vibration test equipment for which no relocation provisions
have been made.
A Division official advised that the proposed facility would house existing
equipment worth $2,111.000 (valued at replacement cost rather than develop-
ment cost where applicable) and proposed equipment acquisitions costing
$380.000. Some of the existing equipment not being used is either in storage at
W-PAFB or at contractors' plants. The following is a summary of the equipment
which would be housed in the proposed facility :
EQUIPMENT FOR PROPOSED FACILITY
Existing Proposed
Type of equipment equipment equipment
Fuel analysis equipment..----------------------------------------------- 103, 000 $93, 500
Fuel test devices -----------------------------------------------------464, 000 9,000
Fuel combustion test equipment. 167, 000 20, 500
Lubricant analysis equipment. --------------------------------------------199, 000
Lubrication test rigs ---- 470,000 7,000
Fire protection test euipment....--------------------------------------------639, 000 250, 000
Miscellaneous support equipment 69, 000 -... --..... . .
Total.. ..................................------------------------------------------------------- 2,111,000 380, 000
D. Personnel
The division's assigned strength as of April 1973 was 81 (40 scientific and
engineering, 7 clerical, 1 support, and 33 wage board technical) personnel. The
division is authorized a total of 83 personnel (2 additional scientists and
engineers). Although urior personnel figures were not immediately available,
the investigative staff was advised that they were relatively constant from
1968 through 1972. In 1972 about nine scientists and engineers were hired to
assume support functions when three support contracts were not renewed.
According to division officials, construction of the proposed facility is not ex-
pected to significantly affect future manpower needs.
E. Workload
The investigative staff reviewed an AFAPL long-range plan dated June 30,
1972, which identified and described the technical efforts projected for fiscal
year 1973 through fiscal year 1980. The technical efforts were categorized into
19 technology planning objectives (TPO's). Each TPO represents an area of
technology anticipated to be pursued to achieve technical goals responsive to
the future estimated needs of the Air Force.
A fuels, lubrication, and fire protection division official stated that in develop-
ing the TPO's, the AFAPL personnel must estimate future technical gaps,
capabilities of aerospace systems, and national objectives. This official also
described the procedures followed in developing a work plan for a given fiscal
year.
He stated, after the start of a fiscal year. a "call" is sent to the scientists
and engineers of the laboratory for suggested work tasks to be pursued in the
following fiscal year. All suggested work tasks include a cost estimate and
breakdown of what is expected to be in-house and contract effort for the fiscal
year under consideration, 3 subsequent fiscal years, and for the task through
completion.
257
Suggested tasks are reviewed first at the branch and then at the division
levels where some suggestions are dropped. After review and screening by the
division chief, the remaining suggestions are forwarded to the AFAPL for
review by a planning committee composed of branch chiefs. All suggestions are
reviewed in light of the TPO's and a list of suggested tasks in order of priority
is developed by the planning committee.
Based on the estimated availability of funds, the tasks falling above a fund-
ing cutoff point form the laboratory work plan for the fiscal year under consider-
ation. There frequently is some shifting of priorities near the cutoff point. This
work plan is submitted for review by higher Air Force authority. Any reduction
in the funds estimated to be available would naturally result in the deletion
of lower priority tasks. The investigative staff was assured that there are always
more tasks on the priority list than can be accomplished with the funds pro-
vided to the division.
Funding for the division has been as follows :
FISCAL YEARS
[In millions of dollars]
Actual Projected
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Inhouse and contract (excludes man-
power)__ -- --. 3.09 2.16 2.29 2.30 2.65 3.00 3.00
Laboratory support (includes manpower)_ 2.21 2. 22 2. 33 2. 45 2. 58 2.71 2. 84
Total__ ...._------------. 5.30 4.38 4.62 4.75 5.23 5.71 5.84
The bulk of laboratory support funds are accounted for by manpower costs
and include the costs for contract monitoring.
During fiscal year 1972, contract-oriented expenditures were 58 percent versus
in-house expenditures of 42 percent. For fiscal year 1973, the trend has reversed
with in-house expenditures at 54 percent versus 46 percent for contract expendi-
tures. The breakdown for fiscal years 1972 and 1973 is as follows:
FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year 1972 Fiscal year 1973
Amount Percent Amount Percent
Contract oriented expenditures (includes laboratory
support and manpower)..------.---- 3.073 58 1.998 46
Inhouse oriented expenditures (includes laboratory
support and manpower).......____.. ...........- - 2.225 42 2. 380 54
Total--...........----------------------------------- 5.298 -------------- 4.378
The decrease in contract-oriented expenditures from fiscal year 1972 to fiscal
year 1973 was due primarily to the lapse of three support contracts. Increased
in-house expenditures for fiscal year 1973 are mainly accounted for by the hiring
of nine scientists and engineers who assumed the support functions when the
contracts were not renewed. A division official remarked that it is generally less
costly to do a job in-house than by contract. It is ,anticipated that a still higher
percentage of work will be accomplished in-house if the requested project is
approved.
In regard to the proportion of in-house effort versus contract effort, the inves-
tigative staff was advised that the AFAPL had adopted a policy that total in-
house effort would not be above 35 percent of the total effort. Because of the na-
ture of the work of the fuels, lubrication, and fire protection division, the per-
centage of in-house effort is higher. Division officials stated this is essential in
order to maintain the expe tise necessary to monitor contracts. As of March 29,
1973, the division had 35 active contracts.
258
F. Proposed fuels, lubrication, and fire protection division facility
The requested project would be located on a site currently occupied by three
buildings which are classified Condition Code 3 and proposed for demolition. An-
other building was previously located on the site but has already been demolished.
The facility would be a two-story structure with masonry walls, steel frames,
concrete floor slabs, and concrete footings. Barricaded cells within the building
would have reinforced concrete walls and ceilings. The building would be com-
posed of laboratories; test cells; shops; scientific, engineering, and administra-
tive areas; and underground fuel storage tanks. Other special features of the
facility include fuel combustion research test cells, shock-vibration insulated test
cells, a hazards detection test laboratory, "hi-mach" fuels research laboratory,
hazardous vapor detectors, a special fire suppression system, and 30-foot high-
bay test cells for hazards testing.
The facility would include a 230-ton air-conditioning system to provide ade-
quate year-round environmental control. The investigative staff was advised that
the cost of the air-conditioning ($330,000) is included in the project request
estimate.
The construction cost estimates are as follows:
Construction cost estimates
Building construction: 2-story facility ------------------------ $3, 931, 000
Supporting facilities :
Electric ---------------------------------------- 73, 000
Transformers ---------------------- ---------------- 204, 000
Water, sanitary sewer------------------------------------ 81, 000
Steam lines ------------------------------------------- 12, 000
Demolition ------------------------------- 115, 000
Site improvement ---------------------------------------- 134, 000
Roads, parking, walks ----------------------------------- 106, 000
Fuel storage tanks ----------------------------------- 201, 000
Total ----------------------------------------------- 926, 000
Total estimated cost------------------------------------ 4, 857, 000
The gross area of the facility would be 68.250 square feet consisting of 36,606
square feet of laboratory space, 4,200 square feet of office space and 27,354 square
feet of other space including laboratory support areas, mechanical equipment
rooms, corridors, restrooms, storage areas, etc.
The space in the facility (68,250 square feet) and the existing space planned to
be retained (28,670 square feet) would increase the division's area by 22,282
square feet over the currently occupied space (74,638 square feet). This increase
results from 20,286 square feet of added laboratory space, 4,055 square feet of
other space and a decrease of 2,059 square feet of office space.
The investigative staff determined that the major items accounting for the
increase in laboratory space were as follows:
Increase
New existing
Activity capability capability Square feet
Combustion test facility 1------------------------------------------- X 2,340
Simulated aircraft fuel environment............................... X ........... 1,350
Hazards test cells 2 .. ...------ - ------------------------------------------------ X 2.750
Fuels analysis laboratories------------------------------------------------------- X 2,300
Fuel heat transfer s------... ..-------------------------------...... ............................ X 900
Slurry pumping.............--------------------------------------- X 900
Lubrication test cells-----.....................................................----------------------------------------- X 7,000
Lubrication analysis------------------ ----------------------------- X 2,400
Total..-----.........--------........................--------------------...-----------------------------------... 19, 940
I This is a new capability for the division. Although the AFAPL has a similar type facility, it is only partially adequate as
to the needs of the Division.
2 This is a new capability since the cells will be barricaded. The division has tested in nonbarricaded space.
a This is a new capability for the division. A fuel system simulation test rig which was developed, constructed and operated
by the Shell Development Co., under contract until August 1972, has been in storage at W-PAFB and would be installed
in the proposed facility.
259
The increase in laboratory space does not include an area of 2,368 SF in the
facility which houses a fuel tank slosh and vibration test rig which is not being
used by the division.
Division personnel to be housed in the proposed facility are 40 scientific and
engineering people, 6 clerical people, one general schedule technician, and 26
wage board technicians.
The division chief, his assistant, and one clerical person would remain in office
space located in building 18. Two wage board technicians would be assigned to the
bearing test rig functions in building 59, and one wage board technician would be
assigned to the hazardous test area in building 71B.
STATUS OF DESIGN
The design contract for the proposed facility was awarded during March 1973.
As of April 10, 1973, an Air Force official estimated the design was about 10 per-
cent complete. Design completion was estimated to occur during December 1973.
The following schedule of events is anticipated if the project is approved : Adver-
tise for bids, January 1974; bid opening, February 1974; contract award, March
1974; notice to proceed, April 1974; completion (18 months), September 1975;
and beneficial occupancy, September 1975.
G. Air Force justification for the proposed facility
Several times over the past years, according to a division official, the question
has been asked: "What do you have to do tomorrow that you cannot do without
the new facility?" The answer is, "Nothing." The division has the reputation
for getting things done and would continue to accomplish its mission using the
existing facilities.
An Air Force official claimed that consolidation of the division's research func-
tions currently being conducted in a fragmented manner in numerous, widely
scattered facilities at W-PAFB is not the primary purpose for the proposed
facility. However, inherent management problems and inefficiencies, which were
claimed to presently exist, could be reduced upon consolidation into a single
facility.
The primary justification for the requested project is that "most of the existing
laboratory space is totally inadequate and cannot be economically modified to
meet safety criteria. Garages1 and maintenance shops have been adapted for
test and laboratory areas. These areas do not have proper barricading, ventila-
tion, or humidity and dust control for precise analyses required in defining
specifications for procurement of fuels and lubricants."
At the time of the investigative staff's inquiry another Air Force official re-
marked that the Deputy Director (Test and Evaluation), Office of the Director
Defense Research and Engineering, OSD, often examines the need for military
construction program requests involving test and evaluation facilities. As a result
of the proposed Air Force facility request, the services were instructed to conduct
a study for the purpose of determining the feasibility of consolidating all fuels
and lubricant activities. Service representatives involved in such activities who
were assigned to the group designated "Subpanel on Aircraft Fuels and Lubricant
Testing" ultimately issued a report during November 1972.
The resulting recommendations, serving to preserve the status quo, were as
follows:
1. That the services continue the excellent coordination of their fuel and
lubricant programs for the purpose of information exchange which, in turn,
results in the avoidance of duplication.
2. That each service maintain its highly responsive, service domain-oriented
fuel and lubricant personnel within its own equipment-oriented organization.
3. That consolidation of functions of facilities, in the aviation fuels and
lubricants testing area, in a single service, not 'be considered further because
the facilities are now at a minimum commensurate with the missions of the
respective services.
The subpanel, as expected in conducting its review, found as follows:
The Navy and Air Force perform the preponderance of aviation fuel and lubri-
cant testing. Based on dollar expenditures, approximately 55 percent, 42 percent,
and 3 percent of this activity is performed by Air Force, Navy, and Army,
respectively.
1 This is an apparent reference to building 62 housing the Lubricant Analysis Laboratory.
The "garage" was remodeled at a cost of $34,000 and is classified as a usable facility (con-
dition code 1) but claimed to be inadequate due to excessive dust.
260
The Navy and Air Force fuel and lubricant test facilities, though equipped with
similar apparatus (and in some instances identical apparatus), are engaged in
investigations of service peculiar products and problems and are supplementary
and do not represent unjustifiable duplication.
Since the major role of the services is definition of their requirements (prep-
aration of engineering data to be incorporated into specifications by which com-
modities are purchased), the removal of testing to another organization would
not significantly reduce the need for personnel and equipment at each service to
conduct its assigned mission.
Consolidation of that portion of the overall Department of Defense (DOD)
activity devoted to testing of aviation fuels and lubricants in, or at, a single
service would be impractical because: (1) no one service has sufficient resources
to assume full responsibility for all DOD, and (2) the special expertise of each
service is well confined to its assigned/assumed domain.
According to an OSD official the reported findings and recommendations of the
subpanel are sound and would appear to justify the need for a new facility for
future testing.
STUDY OF OTHER LOCATIONS FOR FUELS AND LUBRICANTS JOB
Mr. DAVIS. When was the last reevaluation made to determine if
this laboratory should be located at Wright-Patterson or some other
possible site ?
General REILLY. Colonel Stanton. Please ask Colonel Stanton to
come up to the table.
Colonel STANTON. There has been no recent study conducted, sir. In
1967 there was a general study conducted of potential relocation of the
laboratory to other Systems Command locations. The study in a gen-
eral sense considered current facility resources available to fuels and
lubricants laboratory personnel, their mission, location, and orienta-
tion with respect to other elements within the command structure and
the parent laboratory. The general conclusion arrived at was that it
was inappropriate and uneconomical for the Air Force to consider
moving the fuels and lubricants element of the laboratory.
Mr. DAVIS. According to the note that Mr. Nicholas has provided,
that 1967 study referred to "other location," singular. Was there only
one other site considered at that time, do you know ?
Colonel STANTON. My recollection is it was not singular, but perhaps
it was because it was a general study contrasting against basic resources
currently available versus those within any other element of the com-
mand that could be made available.
If it were singular, a key candidate would have been Arnold En-
gineering Development Center.
Mr. DAvIS. This wouldn't fit in more appropriately down at Tulla-
homa, would it, than at Wright-Patterson ?
Colonel STANTON. No, sir, because again this project, sir, is a portion
of a major laboratory of Air Force Systems Command. It involves only
some 79 of 410 people. We would suffer fragmentation of the experi-
tise and disciplines of the total laboratory and the efficiencies of con-
sultation of the Fuels and Lubrication Division with the rest of the
laboratory.
A key element of overall propulsion technology development is the
associated fuels and lubricants capability that must of course improve
our turbine engine efficiency.
EXISTING FACILITIES
Mr. DAVIS. Apparently the situation here is that you have these
existing facilities scattered in a number of different buildings and
that you will be able to do the job in less total space if you do have
it consolidated in one place. Is that right ?
Colonel STANTON. Sir, that is not exactly true. The DD form 1391
data provides an apparent misconception. The laboratory personnel
of the Fuels and Lubricants Division now occupy 74,634 square feet
in 14 scattered, substandard buildings, most of them. They will retain
for their mission use 28,670 square feet. Their final posture after con-
struction of the proposed project, sir, will leave them at 96,900 square
feet, which is indeed some 20,000 more than they are currently
occupying.
Mr. DAVIs. Are you planning to dispose of about 50,000 square
feet then?
Colonel STANTON. To make way for construction of the proposed
project, there are four buildings that will be disposed of that contain
76,699 square feet. As a result of the construction of the project and
reposturing of the laboratory there are another five or six buildings
with an aggregate square footage of 48,196 that will be made available
to the host command for further use and/or disposition at that time.
Mr. DAVIS. Are these buildings that are to be demolished simply
in the way of the new building, or are they not usable? What is the
score on that?
Colonel STANTON. It is a combination. True, they are in the way of
the siting based on the base master plan for location of the new
laboratory but three of these buildings date back to vintage 1928
and are used as minimal warehouses at the present time.
The fourth one is a 1952 building with 352 square feet. They do not
contain laboratory space. They are effectively warehouses.
Mr. DAVIS. What happens to your ongoing research program if you
are going to tear down part of the facilities you now have in order to
put the new one up ?
Colonel STANTON. Sir, we have no intention of relinquishing or tear-
ing down or disposing of any space until this laboratory is a reality.
Prior to its construction the laboratory will function in existing facil-
ities, one of the compelling reasons for not tearing these buildings
down and relocating the laboratory on site.
Mr. DAVIS. In other words, you are not tearing down any of the old
buildings at the exact spot where the new building is going to be ?
Colonel STANTON. No, sir. The two locations are remote from each
other, sir.
COST OF LOCATION AT AEDC
Mr. DAVIs. According to the surveys and investigations staff report
dated this month they reviewed the possibilities of a different site. It
makes reference to the 1969 military construction program which ap-
parently was never implemented and discusses the practicability of re-
locating this activity to a site other than the one proposed. They con-
clude that there could be substantial savings by doing it in that
manner.
The lesser cost was for putting it at the Arnold Engineering Devel-
opment Center site, is that correct ?
Colonel STANTON. Sir, I will have to provide that for the record.
262
[The information follows:]
Prior to submission of the Fuels and Lubricants Laboratory project in the
fiscal year 1969 military construction program, the Technical Facilities Division
of the Air Force Aeropropulsion Laboratory (AFAPL) conducted an internal
staff study. This study considered the feasibility of relocating this portion of
the laboratory to any site other than Wright-Patterson AFB.
The study concluded that it was not in the best interests of the Air Force
to relocate to any other geographical site for the following reasons: (1) the
excessive cost of relocation, (2) the loss in technical capability, research time,
and management competence as a result of expected personnel losses, and (3) the
nullification of not only the present technical interface with other Wright-Patter-
son activities engaged in aeronautical systems development, but the effectiveness
of the centralized management of aeropropulsion technologies within AFAPL.
The study identified the cost to relocate the facility to any other location as
$11,290,000. This cost did not include utilities and services, personel movement,
and equipment relocation costs. At the time the study was conducted the study
included any potential site (including AEDC) as a proposed location. Significant
resources existing at AFAPL that would have to be built at another location
were three static (sea-level) engine test stands and associated fuel tank farm
worth $6,100,000. Such test stands do not exist at AEDC. It is true that engines
can be tested at sea level in the existing altitude engine test cells at AEDC and
use the existing fuel farm, but it is an expensive mode of operation and a gross
misuse of the altitude test capability which is very limited in this country.
Secondly, fuels and lubricants testing with actual engines involves prolonged
engine test runs. Therefore, it would not be in the best interest of the Air Force, in
satisfying all engine test requirements, to tie up three of their altitude cells for
prolonged periods for fuels and lubricants testing.
Colonel STANTON. I am not familiar with any cost associated with
that location, sir. I would like to point out that even if it were to be
located 'at Arnold there are penalties that the Air Force would have
to pay for that relocation in terms of mission interface with elements
of ASD where the procurement of all the aircraft are and with the
remainder of the laboratory which would still be postured at Wright-
Patterson. We would fragment the expertise of our total laboratory
workforce and we would not enhance communications.
Mr. DAVIs. This facility is to be for the benefit of the Air Force.
Will there be some benefits to the other sister services?
Colonel STANTON. In the world of fuels and lubricants research and
development responsibility for each of the myriad of military and
Federal specifications for fuels and lubricants is individually assigned
to each of the respective services.
Wherein we have common product utility certainly the expertise
that will increase, if you will, the value of specifications or improve
the quality of our propellants and lubricants will be as beneficial to
the sister services as they will to the Air Force itself, where there is
common usage.
Mr. DAvIs. This particular type of testing is not conducted by the
Navy?
Colonel STANTON. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. DAvIS. Where do they do that; do you know ?
Colonel STANTON. Yes, sir; the Navy has facilities that are com-
parable in extent at four different locations. They are located at the
Naval Air Propulsion Test Center at Trenton, the Naval Air Propul-
sion Center at Philadelphia, the Navy Research Lab in Washington,
and the Naval Air Development Center in Johnstown.
In other words, the total R. & D. capability in fuels and lubricants
for the Navy collectively is at four separate locations.
Mr. DAVIS. I suppose the logical question is then do we need a very
substantial facility such as this kind for a separate operation by the
Air Force?
Colonel STANTON. Yes, sir. This past fall there was a panel, char-
tered by the Tri-Service Joint Logistics Commanders which looked at
consolidation of facilities for the testing of fuels and lubricants. It was
the consensus of that study that the existing minimal capabilities of
each of the services operate effectively im different environmental do-
mains, the Army with the ground use of fuels and lubricants, the Navy
with shipboard and air, and the Air Force strictly with air, and there
is no R. & D. duplication between the Navy air specifications and areas
of surveillance with that of the Air Force. The Panel's finding was that
the minimal R. & D. testing capability of each of the services negated
any consolidation in one service or more than one of fuels and lubri-
cants testing responsibility for all the Department of Defense.
Mr. DAvis. That Tri-Service study was completed when?
Colonel STANTON. Approximately the turn of the year, sir; I don't
know the exact date.
Mr. DAVIS. Within the past few months ?
Colonel STANTON. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
DATE OF TRI-SERVICE JOINT LoeIsTris STuDY FOR FUELS AND LUBES LAB
The Tri-Service study was completed in November 1972, and the findings and
recommendations were accepted by the Tri-Service Joint Logistics Commanders
on January 10, 1973.
HUMAN IMPACT LABORATORY ADDITION
Mr. DAVIS. We will take a look at this addition and alteration of the
human impact laboratory facility. The request is for $390,000. Would
you review these alterations for us, how the existing facilities would
be changed and what is the purpose of the change?
Colonel STANTON. One of the missions of the aerospace medical re-
search lab is to perform research on human tolerance to horizontal de-
celeration and impact. The product of this research is physiological
data which result in design criteria to aerospace designers for the
proper protection of our aircrews in escape and ejection and crash im-
pact, such as from the B-1 capsule or the F-111 capsule in which for
example the design criteria obtained will result in proper restraining
and protective devices for the aircrew upon ground impact in a B-1
escape capsule. That is the purpose of the facility. At the present time
we have a horizontal acceleration device mounted in building 824.
Building 824 will be modified to have a similar device used for hori-
zontal deceleration and impact studies.
To house the new device it requires an extension of the building
and a 58-foot extension to the existing track upon which the device
will operate. There will be support areas for preparation of the test
specimens and so forth.
I might state that nowhere in the United States does a reproducible,
large payload test capability exist for high tolerance human subject
testing for impact and crash landing.
Mr. DAVIS. Not even at the naval facility up in Pennsylvania?
Colonel STANTON. NO, sir.
Mr. DAVIs. What kind of testing are they doing up there; do you
know ?
Colonel STANTON. You are speaking of Warminster ?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Colonel STANTON. They have an acceleration track. Their primary
interest is in hardware testing, primarily -of ejection seats, chutes, and
restraining harnesses on ejection. They do not have the reliability
or repeatability to pick up the physiological data with the right type
of safety for the subject under test and their payload is limited to
somewhat less than one-fifth of that that is intended at the Wright-
Patterson facility, and there I am talking about the payload is up to
5,000 pounds for the intended facility at Wright-Patterson.
Mr. DAVIS. What about out at Holloman? What about down at
NASA ? Do they have anything of this kind ?
Colonel STANTON. At Holloman there are two tracks. One is the
large test track which is strictly used for hardware testing. It is not
man rated in spite of the fact that Dr. Stapp did ride that track.
The second track is a mission element of this particular laboratory.
It was known and is known as the Daisy track. It has been used for
physiological 'testing of human subjects but again it is limited in
payload and reliability. The track is outdoors.
There is little repeatability in terms of test data to be obtained.
It will be retained by the Air Force for low g level testing. There
is an intent on the part of the Air Force at this time to lease this
facility to the New Mexico State University for their management
and operation with the Air Force's proviso that we have priority
considerations on tests that we would pursue there.
Mr. DAVIs. What about NASA ?
Colonel STANTON. NASA does very little human subject testing
except in the drop mode. In fact they had come to this laboratory
in their Apollo studies. Further, in the area of NASA the total MCP
requirements as to capability are reviewed by a DOD-NASA team
called an Aerospace Aeronautics Coordinating Board.
This body reviews all the military construction projects of the Air
Force and NASA and vice versa and postures and comes up with the
position statement that is signed off by the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering and the Deputy Director of NASA.
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY ORGANIZATION
Mr. DAVIS. Provide for the record strengths for the past 5 years
and for the next 3 years broken out by activity at Wright-Patterson.
[The information follows:]
The following are manpower strengths for Wright-Patterson AFB in the time
frame requested. The figures beginning in FY 1974 are adjusted to reflect the
current programed position. These adjustments incorporate recent standards
applications, civilian employment reductions, and the effect of force action
change decisions.
TOTAL BASE POPULATION
AFLC AT WPAFB
AFLC HQ
AFSC AT WPAFB
ASD (AFSC)
STUDENTS
TRANSIENTS SUPPORTED
TOTAL BASE POPULATION
AFLC AT WPAFB
AFLC HQ
AFSC AT WPAFB
ASD (AFSC)
STUDENTS
TRANSIENTS SUPPORTED
FY 69 FY 70 FY 71 FY 72
OFF AMN CIV AG OFF AMN CIV AGG OFF AMN CIV AGG OFF AMN CIV AGG OFF
4067 4606 19159 27832 4039 4666 17965 26670 4069 4581 17802 26452 4207 4414 17372 25993 4383
826 1765 9865 12456 815 1520 8804 11139 838 1539 8722 11099 853 1583 8557 10993 872
(371) (147)(2150)(2668) (364) (175)(2090)(2629) (371) (150)(2006)(2527) (331) (119)(2033)(24.83) (335
1519 899 8347 10765 1591 859 8177 10627 1741 88J 8460 11084 1943 908 8225 11076 1951
(895) (536)(5120)(6551) (968) (459)(5039)(6466) (1037) (469)(4960)(6436) (1137) (443)(4537)(6117) (1130
853 1 854 749 749 749 749 728 728 742
200 170 105 475 177 170 120 467 100 75 175 100 100 208
FY74 FY 75 FY76
OFF AMN CIV AGG OFF ANN CIV AGG OFF AMN CIV AGO
4387 4466 16385 25238 4363 4453 16417 25233 4335 4452 16321 25108
870 1517 7905 10292 870 1517 7927 10314 869 1517 7857 10243
(335) (107)(1997)(2439) (335) (107)(1997)(2439) (335) (107)(1997)(2439)
1931 803 786610600 1925 803 787610604 1898 803 7850 10550
(1105) (370)(4037)(5512) (1103) (370)(4047)(5520) (1075) (370)(4021)(5466)
742
208 75
742 742
283 208 75
742 742
283 208 75
FY73
AMN CIV AGG
4458 16882 25723
1621 8015 10508
(107)(1998)(2440).
821 8272 11044
(379)(4358)(5867)
AIRMEN'S DORMITORY
Mr. DAVIS. Why does the cost of this airmen dormitory stand at
$34.20 a square foot while other airmen dormitories cost under $30 a
square foot?
[The information follows:]
SQUARE-FOOT COST OF AIRMEN DORMITORY AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON
The area cost factor, used for adjusting program cost estimates, for Wright-
Patterson AFB is (1.20). We have used the new DOD statutory limit of $28.50
per square foot for airmen dormitories and adjusted this figure with the applica-
ble area cost factor for the location of construction.
Mr. DAVIS. You say most of the assigned airmen will be housed in
adequate dormitories if this project is approved. How many will not
be adequately housed ?
General REILLY. Completion of the proposed new construction proj-
ect of 194 spaces will raise the adequate housing level to 72 percent of
our requirements, leaving 28 percent inadequately housed.
ADVANCED LOGISTICS SYSTEM UTILITY SUPPORT
Mr. DAVIS. Then we have a request for $300,000 for advanced logis-
tics system utility support. Have you had a problem out here or are
you gearing up for some additional requirement ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, it is the latter. The new third-gen-
eration computer has just been installed at Wright-Patterson. It will
start operation the 1st of this July. The backup power and electricity
will be required to assure the effective operation of that equipment.
Mr. DAVIs. Is this computer installation similar to those at other
AFLC bases?
General REILLY. All ALS installations will have essentially identi-
cal types of equipment installed; however, each will be unique in num-
bers and capacity of certain components. Major differences are:
(a) The amount of extended core storage.
(b) The total requirement for immediate access storage devices.
(c) The number of peripheral devices required in the machine
room; tape drives, card readers, card punches, and line printers.
(d) Number of remote devices and associated communications
equipment required.
The nuclear ordnance logistics system (NOLS) site at Kelly AFB
is unique in that only one central processing unit (CPU) is required,
compared with two CPU's initially installed at all of the other ALS
sites.
Mr. SIKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
Colonel Stanton, what is your job?
Colonel STANTON. Sir, I am the R. & D. representative on General
Reilly's facilities requirements committee and my purpose is to pro-
gram, support, and defend R. & D. for the Air Force R. & D.
community.
Mr. SIRES. What is your educational background ?
Colonel STANTON. I have a bachelor of aeronautical engineering and
master of science in industrial management, sir.
Mr. SIKES. You are a very capable witness.
Colonel STANTON. Thank you very much, sir.
267
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Mr. SixEs. We will take up the Air Force Systems Command.
Put in the record page 54.
[The page follows:]
Air Force Systems Command
Proposed
Installation: program
Edwards Air Force Base, Calif------------------------------ $889, 000
Eglin Air Force Base, Fla--------------------------------7, 039, 000
Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Mass--...------------------------- 480, 000
Satellite control facilities .......---------------------------------- ..654, 000
Total ------------------------------------------- 9, 062, 000
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
The next major command to be considered is the Air Force Systems Command
whose mission is to advance aerospace technology, adopt it into operational aero-
space systems, and acquire qualitatively superior aerospace systems and materiel
needed to accomplish the Air Force mission.
The construction program at bases with Air Force Systems Command as host
amounts to $9,062,000. Of this amount, $8,207,000 is for items to support the Air
Force Systems Command mission and $855,000 is in support of the Tactical Air
Command on Eglin Auxiliary Airfield No. 9.
Similarly, presentations of the Air Force Logistics Command, Strategic Air
Command and the Tactical Air Command include $22,646,000 for the Air Force
Systems Command. The total construction program in the United States in sup-
port of the Air Force Systems Command is $30,853,000.
SUMMARY OF SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS REPORT ON SYSTEMS
COMMAND
Mr. SIKES. The request is for $9,062,000. We have a classified investi-
gative staff report on the Systems Command which will be sanitized
and placed in the record. It will be made available to the Air Force.
Possibly we will place portions of it, a summary of it, in the record.
[The information follows:]
268
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SURVEYS & INVESTIGATIONS STAFF REPORT
ON
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND FACILITY UTILIZATION
I. INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the study was to analyze the Air Force Systems Command
(AFSC) projected workload, inventory existing facilities and analyze their current
and projected rates of utilization and study plans for construction of new facil-
ities.
II. SCOPE:
The investigating team visited all AFSC continental US bases as well as
other bases hosting Systems Command field elements.
III. AFSC:
The AFSC is responsible for the advancement of aerospace technology
and development and acquisition of the aerospace systems necessary for national
survival. AFSC manages or controls approximately 30% of the yearly Air Force
Budget, 57,000 Military and Civil Service personnel and world-wide facilities
which cost $2 billion. In addition AFSC has cognizance over 37 Air Force plants
(Industrial Facilities) representing an investment in excess of $2.2 billion.
AFSC Headquarters, a tenant at Andrews AFB employs 1,920 people and
occupies about 430,000 SF of building space which cost approximately $8 million.
It was observed that AFSC field elements response to AFSC Hq planning
guidance varied markedly and the field projected resource requirements may there-
fore be unrealistic.
IV. ARNOLD AIR FORCE STATION, TULLAHOMA, TENNESSEE.
Arnold Air Force Station (Arnold AFS), a 41,000 acre installation
established by the Unitary Wind Tunnel Act, PL 415 of the 81st Congress, is
managed by the Arnold Engineering Center (AEDC). This installation, a national
resource, is used to satisfy aerodynamic, space environment and propulsion test
requirements of the Air Force and other services as well as other Government
agencies, industry and allied foreign Governments.
There are 240 buildings having 1,901,624 SF to accommodate three major
test complexes and the AEDC Hq. The Engine Test Facility occupies 41 buildings
(421,028 SF); the Propulsion Wind Tunnel facility, 27 buildings (195,048 SF); the
Von Karman Facility, 21 buildings (309,713; SF); and the remaining 151 buildings
provide space for the headquarters functions and supporting shops, library,
restaurant, post office, etc.
AEDC has an authorized strength of 226 to manage this installation
having an acquisition cost, excluding land, of slightly less than $365,000,000
and an estimated replacement cost of over $815,000,000. The facilities are
operated and maintained by a contract that averages $50 million/year. The work-
load has been increasing since FY 71 and AEDC officials believe the trend will
continue.
AEDC has identified 39 projects estimated to cost $70,000,000 that are
candidates in the FY 74-78 MCP. In addition, two high cost facilities, the Aero-
propulsion Systems Test Facility ($200,000,000) and the High Reynolds Number
Tunnel ($40,000,000) are also proposed at Arnold AFS. Appropriate committees of
the Congress have been notified of these two proposed facilities.
V. AIR FORCE EASTERN TEST RANGE, FLORIDA.
The Eastern Test Range (ETR) is a DOD National Range over which the
Air Force has been assigned executive management responsibility and the Head-
quarters is located at Patrick AFB, Florida. The ETR consists of Patrick AFB,
Cape Kennedy Air Force Station, and a chain of 45 instrumented tracking stations
in the lower Atlantic extending to Ascension Island and Pretoria, South Africa.
ThE ETR which supports all DOD and NASA missile and space launches has
a combined g6oernment and contractor work force of 14,211 employees. Since 1966
this Range has endured > reduction in personnel of 48%. The FY 72 missile and
space launch workload is expected to double in the FY 73 through FY 76 period,
primarily due to an increased Navy requirement.
269
The investment cost of facilities at Patrick AFB, exclusive of land and
equipment is $88,619,000 with an estimated replacement cost of $207,521,000.
Seventy-nine thousand SF of unused space in the Technical Laboratory was at one
time proposed to house the Foreign Technology Division from Wright-Patterson AFB,
Ohio, and now houses instead the Air Force Technical Applications Center, previ-
ously in Alexandria, Virginia. ETR computer and photographic activities are also
in this complex. In addition there are eight administrative facilities, which
could be more intensively utilized.
Of the 45 established instrumented range sites with a total value of
$58,300,000, 19 are active and operated on foreign soil by agreement, and 11 are
active and operated in the State of Florida, and the balance are in caretaker
status.
Cape Kennedy Air Force Station with an investment cost, exclusive of
land and equipment, of $215,954,000 and an estimated replacement cost of
$447,025,000, is devoted to preparation, checkout and launch of missiles and
space vehicles. Fifteen formerly active complexes have either been demolished,
converted to other use or placed in standby. Eleven launch complexes are current-
ly active. There is administrative space in 16 buildings that is not being fully
utilized.
Thirty-seven military construction projects, totalling $18,022,000, have
been identified as FY 74-FY 78 requirements by ETR.
VI. ARMAMENT DEVELOPMENT AND TEST CENTER, EGLIN AFB, FLORIDA.
Eglin AFB, managed by the Armament Development and Test Center (ADTC),
consists of over 740 square miles of land and an unrestricted test area extending
over the Gulf of Mexico. It represents an investment cost of over $200,000,000,
exclusive of land, and has an estimated replacement cost of $1.5 billion.
ADTC with an authorized manpower strength of about 7,900 supports over
30 tenant organizations (10,000 manpower level) as well as being responsible for
research, development, test and evaluation and initial procurement of Air Force
conventional munitions and related equipment.
The major elements of ADTC are the Headquarters staff, 677 personnel
occupying 125,429 SF in two buildings; the Air Force Armament Laboratory having
791 personnel occupying.246,738 SF in 23 buildings; the 3246th Test Wing and the
Directorate of Range Engineering with.1473 personnel occupying 573,767 SF in 57
buildings. The remaining ADTC personnel provide the base support (Personnel,
Civil Engineering, Logistics, etc.) and occupy 2,765,464 SF in 402 buildings.
The tenant organizations occupy 1,054,069 SF in 247 buildings.
ADTC has identified 87 projects having a total estimated cost of
$67,000,000 as candidates for the FY 74-78 MCP.
VIII. EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA.
A. Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB) managed by the Air Force Flight Test
Center (AFFTC) consists of over 300,000 acres, represents an investment of about
$200,000,000, exclusive of land, and has a replacement cost of $330,000,000.
AFFTC, authorized strength of 4987, is responsible for flight test-
ing and evaluation of aircraft systems, training of test pilots, testing of aero-
dynamic decelerators and supporting over 42 tenant organizations including the
NASA Flight Research Center. Major elements of the AFFTC are the 6510th Test Wing,
547 personnel occupying 22 buildings (1,508,672 SF); the Air Force Pilot School
occupying one building having 25,610 SF; the 6511th Test Group (Parachute) at
El Centro, California; and the support organizations (Supply, Civil Engineering,
Personnel, etc.) occupying over 125 buildings having over 1,700,000 SF of space.
Consideration is being given to moving the 6511th Test Group (Parachute) from
El Centro to Edwards AFB.
AFFTC has identified 29 projects, estimated cost of $61,912,000, as
candidates for the FY 74-78 MCP.
B. AIR FORCE ROCKET PROPULSION LABORATORY (AFRPL)
AFRPL, a tenant of EAFB, on a remote 70,000 acre site is respon-
sible for developing rocket propulsion technology and evaluating/exploiting new
rocket concepts. The AFRPL, whose authorized strength has been reduced from a
peak of around 800 in the late 60's to about 500 has consolidated its functions
and is presently utilizing a portion of the facilities provided in the mid and
late 1960s. The AFRPL has 63 buildings containing 621,000 SF, approximately 80%
270
is used and the balance, general purpose is in stand-by status. AFRPL noted that
due to the remote location and the type of facilities vacant it is unlikely they
will be effectively utilized under present programs. AFRPL MCP requirements
consist of two projects, totalling $2,000,000, to upgrade their two most active
facilities and a $6,500,000 3-year incrementalized program to provide exhaust
scrubbers on their most heavily utilized test stands.
VIII. KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO.
The Air Force Special Weapons Center (AFSWC) conducts aircraft compat-
ibility testing of special weapons and associated support equipment, tests and
evaluates inertial aircraft navigation and missile guidance systems and operates
the high speed test track and radar target scatter facility. It is the host
organization at Kirtland AFB and has an operating organization, the 6585th Test
Group, operating three major test facilities as tenants at Holloman AFB, New
Mexico.
Kirtland AFB has 47,446 acres of land and over 760 buildings. The
facilities, exclusive of land and equipment, represent an investment cost of
$168,307,000 and an estimated replacement cost of $378,000,000. AFSWC has 3,985
personnel assigned and another 12,986 personnel belong to a number of tenant or-
ganizations, the largest of which are the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) and the Air Force Weapons Laboratory (AFWL). The Manzano
Base facilities, consisting of 690,518 SF have been vacated due to remoteness and
security. Based on Air Force acquisition of 249 excess buildings from the AEC in
April 1971, Kirtland facilities were deemed underutilized. Air Force officials
claimed attempted full utilization by numerous planned relocations; such as, Head-
quarters, Contract Management Division from Los Angeles AFS, California. The In-
vestigative Staff further suggested that a consolidation of Headquarters, Human
Resources Laboratory, Brooks AFB, Texas, with some of its operating elements at
Kirtland might be appropriate.
The Air Force Weapons Laboratory (AFWL), is the principal Air Force
tenant organization and executes research, exploratory and advanced development
of nuclear and advanced weapons. AFWL workload, funding and manpower, with empha-
sis on laser development, is expected to increase over FY 72 levels.
Thirty-three military construction projects, totalling $15,903,000, have
been identified as FY 74 - FY 78 requirements for both AFSWC and AFWL by Kirtland
Air Force officials.
IX. LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE STATION, CALIFORNIA.
The Headquarters elements of both Space and Missile Systems Organiza-
tion (SAMSO) and Air Force Satellite Control Facility are located at Los Angeles
Air Force Station with the exception that the Minuteman missile management element
of SAMSO is housed as a tenant on Norton AFB, California, 75 miles away. SAMSO
has, including all world-wide operating elements, 5600 people, expends $2 billion
annually and operates from an estimated property and equipment investment of
$700,000,000. SAMSO has 1,499,000 SF of space worth an investment cost of
$38,800,000. However, Annex I consisting of three government buildings on 3.89
acres of land and a leased building and a leased parking lot will be disposed of
by July 1973 with savings of refurbishment, maintenance, and leasing costs.
The retention of Annex II which has a 65,106 SF government-owned air-
craft hangar on land leased from the city of Los Angeles was questioned. Annex II
houses the 6592d Operations Squadron and seven aircraft used for administrative
and proficiency flying support of SAMSO. A logical alternative would be reloca-
tion to Edwards AFB, California, about 90 miles north of Los Angeles.
Six military construction projects, totalling $4,962,000, have been
identified as FY 75 - FY 77 requirements by SAMSO.
X. SUNNYVALE AIR FORCE STATION, CALIFORNIA.
Although the headquarters is in Los Angeles, Detachment 1 of the Satel-
lite Control Facility operates the Satellite Test Center (STC) at Sunnyvale which
is the hub of a world-wide network of tracking stations which monitor status,
communicate with and control satellite vehicles. The STC consists of three prima-
ry buildings on 19.6 acres of land. The acquisition cost of the complex is
$18,400,000. This STC complex is occupied by 1,369 people which is expected to
remain at that level. A new wideband satellite communication system will be
acquired over the next three years which will require additional space. In
271
addition to the STC there are seven other world-wide satellite tracking stations.
These stations retrieve and collect telemetry data, tracking data and payload in-
formation which is transmitted to the STC by an inter-station communications net-
work.
Satellite Control Facility workload is expected to exceed the FY 72
level for the next three years.
Twenty-one military construction projects, totalling $19,439,000, have
been identified as FY 74 - FY 78 requirements world-wide by Satellite Control
Facility personnel.
XI. SPACE AND MISSILE TEST CENTER, CALIFORNIA.
The Space and Missile Test Center (SAMTEC) which is subordinate to
SAMSO has a headquarters staff and operating elements which are tenants on
Vandenberg AFB, a Strategic Air Command installation. SAMTEC's mission is to
operate the Western Test Range in support of DOD and NASA missile and space pro-
grams. In this mission SAMTEC employs 5,758 people (880 Government personnel and
4,869 contractor personnel).
SAMTEC workload is projected to continue at the FY 72 level. Reductions
in Air Force programs such as Minuteman will be offset by increases in NASA and
Navy programs.
SAMTEC and its range contractors occupy 667,021 SF of space of 47 build-
ings with an acquisition cost of $19,679,000. Similarly, 17 missile and space
contractor firms are utilizing 95 facilities on Vandenberg AFB with an acquisition
cost of $34,728,000. The primary down-range instrumentation complex is located on
Canton Island. It is a 1,700 acre foreign land agreement base having facilities
valued at $2,623,000.
Twenty-two military construction projects, totalling $18,668,000 have
been identified as FY 74 - FY 78 requirements by SAMTEC. Two projects for FY 77,
the Communications Operation Center and an Operations Technical Facility, do not
appear to be valid.
XII. ROME AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER (RADC), GRIFISS AIR FORCE BASE (GAFB), NEW YORK.
RADC, a tenant at GAFB, occupies on base facilities having an investment
cost, exclusive of land, of about $22,000,000 with a replacement cost of almost
$33,000,000. In addition, RADC has 16 off-base sites (ranging in size from two to
214 acres) totalling 2,717 acres. Six of the sites are leased.
RADC has an authorized strength of about 1460 and is responsible for
RDI&E of ground based electronics. FY 72 funding to RADC from AFSC, other commands
and other agencies for this work was almost $160,000,000.
Only one relatively small ($400,000) MCP facility is planned in the fore-
seeable future.
XIII. LAWRENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD, MASSACHUSETTS.
A. LAWRENCE G HANSCOM FIELD (LGHF), managed by the AFSC Electronic Systems
Division (ESD) consists of 1,661 acres, 640 of which are leased. The capital in-
vestment is over $80,000,000.
ESD also plans, programs, designs and manages the acquisition of all
electronic command, control and communications systems. Approximately 48 percent
of the authorized 3900 personnel are utilized for operation, maintenance, and
support of LGHF and off-base facilities of ESD and tenants (tenants authorized
manpower is 4,800).
ESD was involved in.40 projects ($700,000,000) for more than 400 world-
wide installations in FY 72. Three of the 13 world-wide ESD detachments support-
ing such efforts will be phased out in 1973.
ESD has identified 21 facilities totalling $10,500,000 as candidates
for the FY 74-78 MCP. In addition a $13,500,000 FY 74 MCP project for facilities
associated with an OSD approved radar system was recommended by USAF to OSD.
B. AIR FORCE CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH LABORATORY (AFCRL).
AFCRL is a tenant at LGHF responsible for research and development in the environ-
mental and physical sciences. It occupies over 510,000 SF in 34 buildings as well
as almost 55,000 SF on six off-base sites in Massachusetts. Three of these are
leased.
Additionally, AFCRL has seven leased instrumentation sites (six in
Massachusetts and one in Minnesota) totalling 250 acres. AFCRL also has a Solar
20-632 0 - 73 - 18
272
Research Laboratory at Cloudcroft, New Mexico and two Balloon Launching Detach-
ments, one at Holloman AFB, New Mexico and the other in Chico, California.
AFCRL personnel strength has been decreasing (from 1241 in FY 1969 to
1156 in FY 1972). No reduction in their annual funding level ($55,000,000) is
anticipated.
The only MCP project identified by the AFCRL is a $613,000 addition to
their research library which was submitted in their FY 74 MCP.
XIV. WRIGHT-PATIERSON AIR FORCE BASE (WPAFB), OHIO.
Two AFSC Divisions and seven Laboratories, tenants of the Air Force
Logistics Command at WPAFB, utilize approximately 5,300,000 million SF of space
in 150 buildings. The actual cost of the AFSC occupied facilities, including
improvements, but excluding mission equipment, was $96,750,000. Their replace-
ment cost is estimated at over $300,000,000. AFSC, the largest tenant at WPAFB
employs over 40% of the total base population.
A. AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS DIVISION (ASD).
ASD is responsible for planning and managing the development and
acquisition of aeronautical systems, subsystems and associated equipment as well
as providing extensive support to the other AFSC elements at WPAFB. ASD personnel
(5870) occupy about 56 buildings having slightly less than 2,250,000 SF of admin-
istrative, shop, supply, laboratory, hangar and other support type space. ASD
funding for RDT&E and production has normally been about $3 1/2 billion annually
and is projected at $4 billion for the next several years. ASD has identified
five projects totalling $21,795,000 as candidates for the FY 74-78 MCP.
B. FOREIGN.TECHNOLOGY DIVISION (FTD).
An investigative Staff Report on the FTD FY 73 MCP project (Phase I)
was submitted on 15 Mar 72. Phase II, 242,000 SF with an estimated cost of
$11,500,000, is planned for the FY 74 MCP. The present data on FTD is essentially
the same as previously reported except as follows. FTD has acquired 13,000 SF of
ASD space, and 7,000 SF of storage space. FTD previously projected personnel
level of 1755 for FYs 1973 thru 1976 has been increased to 1755 in FY 73, 2001 in
FY 74, and 2123 in FY 75.
SAlthough an AFSC directed study concluded relocating FTD to
Patrick AFB, Florida, was feasible and cost effective, the Air Force decision to
retain the FTD at WPAFB was reportedly on the basis it would be more costly to
move them into Patrick AFB facilities comparable to those which would be construc-
ted at WPAFB.
C. AIR FORCE MATERIALS LABORATORY (AFML).
The AFML is responsible for AF RDT&E efforts for materials. It
utilizes 272,000 SF in eleven buildings which are occupied by 415 AFML personnel
and about 190 contractor and other personnel engaged in AFML efforts.
A marked increase in the AFML annual funding level $55,000,000 is
projected in FY 74 and FY 75. Although these AFML projections are subject to
AFSC scrubbing,an increased workload is anticipated.
Phase I of a new Materials Laboratory (FY 72 MCP) is under construc-
tion. Phase II ($17,980,000), planned as a FY 77 MCP candidate, will complete
the foreseeable AFML facility requirements.
D. AIR FORCE AVIONICS LABORATORY (AFAL).
AFAL is responsible for development of avionics technology, is in-
volved in related advanced development programs and provides avionics support
thru the systems acquisition phases. It is located in 609,000 SF of space in
twelve buildings.
AFAL authorized FY 73 manpower (831) is projected to be 950 in
FY 73, 975 in FY 74, and 1000 in FY 75. AFAL is a Project Reflex Lab wherein
manpower levels are controlled fiscally rather than by both manpower and finan-
cial controls. AFAL has only one MCP project. It is identified as AVLAB III,
a FY 75 candidate having an estimated MCP cost of $16,325,000 million. AVLAB I
was approved in the FY 65 MCP and AVLAB II, an addition, was approved in the
FY 68 MCP.
AFAL funding level was $89,000,000 and $91,000,000 for FY 71 and
FY 72 respectively. They project an increase to around $110,000,000 which is
subject to AFSC scrubbing.
E. AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS LABORATORY (AFFDL).
AFFDL is responsible for planning and executing the AF exploratory
273
and advanced development programs for aerospace flight vehicle structures, flight
mechanics, flight control, vehicle dynamics, vehicle equipment, and vertical
short takeoff and land (VSTOL) technology. It utilizes 26 buildings (747,000 SF)
which are occupied by 979 AFFDL employees and 184 contractor and support person-
nel.
The AFFDL projects a substantial (300%) increase in their funding
level by FY 77 on the basis of an AF Chief Scientist Report. This unconstrained
projection will be "scrubbed down" by AFSC. Actual FY 72 funding was about
$68, 000,000.
Six projects, total estimated cost $27,966,000, have been identi-
fied as FY 74-76 MCP candidates. The Investigative Staff noted that part of the
MCP requirements might be satisfied by space to be vacated on completion of the
AFFDL FY 73 MCP item presently under construction. The Investigative Staff was
advised one of the projects ($10,875,000, FY 76 MCP) would probably be cancelled.
F. AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LABORATORY (AFHRL), ADVANCED SYSTEMS
DIVISION.
The function of the Advanced Systems Division is to conduct explora-
tory and advanced development efforts on human resources in systems development,
simulation techniques, training for advanced systems, and technical data for
maintenance. These efforts contribute to improved human performance in Air Force
systems and operations.
This Division has 46 assigned personnel and occupies one 21,600 SF
building. The Division's workload projection is rather constant with funding
averaging about $6,000,000 yearly.
The Investigative Staff was advised by an Air Force official that
it would be an improvement to consolidate this Division with AFHRL Headquarters.
(See Section 15, this report).
On the understanding the building they now occupy is scheduled for
demolition, the Advanced Systems Division foresees an MCP project to modify some
building to serve their needs. The Investigative Staff determined their exist-
ing building is not on the FY 73-FY 77 disposal list.
G. AIR FORCE AEROPROPULSION LABORATORY (AFAPL).
The AFAPL is responsible for planning and executing the Air Force
exploratory and advanced development programs for turbine engine propulsion,
ramjet propulsion, power generation, electric and advanced propulsion (non-
chemical), fuels, lubricants, and hazards. It has 396 employees and occupies
690,000 SF in 23 buildings.
AFAPL funding level was relatively stable at about $50,000,000
from FY 68 through FY 72. AFAPL projections average about $50,000,000 through
FY 75.
In addition to the above the AFAPL received $3,000,000 on a proto-
type engine program in 1972. AFAPL projection on this program is $22,000,000
for FY 73 and $31,400,000 for FY 74, bringing the projected total to over
$70,000,000 in FY 73 and over $80,000,000 in FY 74.
AFAPL has identified Lfive projects, estimated cost of $12,834,000,
as candidates for the FY 74-76 MCP.
H. AEROSPACE RESEARCH LABORATORY (ARL).
ARL is responsible for planning and executing major Air Force in-
house research programs in the various areas of mathematical, physical and
engineering sciences. ARL occupies one building (105,000 SF) and 26 relocatable
structures.
A recent ARL manpower cut of 25 percent reduced their strength to
245. Space being vacated as a result of the reduction is not included in the
above. ARL has 110 contract employees in addition to their 245 personnel. The
ARL workload expressed in terms of fund allocation was projected to drop slightly
in FY 73 and FY 74. FY 72 funding, $12,596,000, was projected to be $12,469,000
for FY 73 and $12,488,000 for FY 74 based on dollar constraints imposed by AFSC.
ARL has not identified MCP requirements.
The Investigative Staff inquired as to whether the ARL High
Reynolds Number Facility would serve the AFARL High Reynolds Number Facility
requirements. The AFFRL project has been described as a "backyard" facility but
the estimated cost of $4,600,000 makes it appear otherwise.
274
I. 6570TH AEROSPACE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY (AMRL).
AMRL, an Aerospace Medical Division organization conducts human
engineering and biomedical research on human tolerances and human performance
capability to establish design criteria for Air Force equipment.
It occupies 237,000 SF in 19 buildings at WPAFB and has 307
authorized personnel and about 125 contract personnel, including those personnel
at the AMRL Operating Location at Holloman AFB.
The AMRL yearly funding level of approximately $13,000,000 is
projected to remain constant for the next few years.
An AMRL FY 73 MCP project for a Human Impact Facility ($390,000)
was not approved by Congress. AMRL has identified four additional items having
an estimated cost of $5,479,000 as candidates for the FY 74-76 MCP.
6570TH AMRL OPERATING LOCATION (AMRL-OL).
This unit, consisting of five Air Force and 16 contractor personnel,
occupies five buildings having a total of 9,940 SF and operates a deceleration
track facility. The Investigative Staff questioned whether or not the AMRL
Human Impact Facility and the AMRL-OL deceleration track could be consolidated.
The Investigative Staff is of the opinion that serious consideration should be
given to consolidating the two activities prior to resubmission of any additional
MCP requests.
XV. BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS.
Brooks AFB consists of about 1352 acres and 151 buildings, and
represents an investment cost of $34,800,000 and a replacement cost of
$78,300,000. Aerospace Medical Division (AMD), is the host organization and the
Headquarters Human Resources Laboratory is the primary tenant. Major elements
of AMD at Brooks are the Headquarters and the School of Aerospace Medicine. ,
These two organizations plus the Air Base Group support are authorized 1982
people which is anticipated to remain stable. The Headquarters occupies 65,330
SF of administrative space in nine buildings and the School of Aerospace Medi-
cine occupies 663,178 SF of space in 40 buildings, eight of which are temporary
structures. The School of Aerospace Medicine is dedicated to medical support of
man in aircraft and space vehicles, thus 98% of their space is medical labora-
tory and training space. The workload for the school is expected to remain
stable.
Wilford Hall Medical Center, the Air Force's largest hospital, is a
component of AMD located at Lackland AFB. The Center's mission, in addition to
a comprehensive medical care program, is to assist the School of Aerospace Medi-
cine in its education and clinical research programs. The Center has an author-
ized strength of 3,186 people and consists of 785,440 SF in 60 separate build-
ings, 38 of which are temporary structures. Both the out-patient and in-patient
workloads of this hospital have increased steadily with population growth. A
457,100 SF addition and a 210,400 SF alteration to the composite medical facility
at an estimated cost of $39,680,000 is proposed for FY 75.
The Headquarters of the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory
(AFHRL) at Brooks AFB consists of 50 people and occupies 13,111 SF of office
space in two temporary, renovated officers quarters. This laboratory is respon-
sible for basic research and development programs in the areas of personnel
management, training, and education. The Laboratory has operating Divisions at
Lackland AFB, Texas; Williams AFB, Arizona; Lowry AFB, Colorado; Wright-Patterson
AFB, Ohio; and Alexandria, Virginia. Inasmuch as AFHRL's Human Resources Labora-
tory FY 73 MCP Project was not approved by Congress and in view of the avail-
ability of 150,000 SF of administrative space at Kirtland AFB, the Investigating
Staff is of the opinion that consolidation and relocation of all AFHRL divisions
(except those at Williams and Lowry AFBs) at Kirtland AFB should be given serious
consideration by AFSC.
Eighteen military construction projects have been identified as
FY 74 - FY 77 requirements at Brooks AFB by AMD.
XVI. REALIGNMENTS, CONSOLIDATIONS, RELOCATIONS.
Officials at Headquarters Air Force were reluctant to discuss this
subject because of the sensitivity of such information as it affects people,
whole communities, property values and because such decisions are based on budget-
ary and force structure considerations which were not known for FY 74. In
commenting on the relocation of Air Force Technical Applications Center (AFTAC)
275
to Patrick AFB, an Air Force official stated this was in conformance with the
policy of reducing military presence in the National Capital region and further
confirmed that it was an OSD decision to allocate the vacated AFTAC facility in
Alexandria, Virginia, to the Defense Nuclear Agency.
Headquarters AFSC officials did verify the completed move of the
Civil Engineering Center, involving 186 people, from Wright-Patterson in July
1972 to Tyndall AFB, Florida, but under the control of AFSC. They also verified
the impending move of the aircraft, crews and maintenance personnel from the
6511th Test Group at El Centro to Edwards AFB, California. AFSC further advised
that relocation of flight activities at Los Angeles, California, to Edwards AFB,
California, was under consideration.
XVII. RELATED WORK AND FACILITIES.
Major instances of identical or closely related work performed by
or for other services or agencies are as follows:
NASA's Flight Research Center and the Army's Aviation Systems
Test Activity are both located at Edwards AFB and utilize Edwards AFB facilities
such as the flight test range and Test Pilot School.
The Joint Parachute Test Facility at El Centro, California,
used by all the Services.
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory located with the AFRPL at
Edwards AFB.
The establishment of the nuclear community, the military
services, Defense Nuclear Agency and AEC around Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the
resulting beneficial close working relationship.
The Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board identifi-
cation of major environmental testing facilities for cooperative NASA/Services
use.
The utilization of both Eastern Test and Western Test Ranges
for Air Force and other Services, NASA, Advanced Research Projects Agency,
United Kingdom and NATO missile launches.
276
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
UNREALISTIC PLANNING AT INSTALLATIONS
Mr. SINEs. The report indicates that the AFSC requires each divi-
sion and test center to submit documents projecting resources believed
required to meet future goals. It was noted these documents were not
uniform in that some represented "wish lists" while others were con-
fined to hard requirements. General Reilly, you haven't had an op-
portunity to study this report, but can you tell us prior to studying
the report what is being done to make certain that all such planning
documents are submitted under the same criteria ?
General REILLY. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will call on Colonel
Stanton.
Mr. SIKES. All right.
Colonel STANTON. The.headquarters of AFSC actually issues inter-
nal planning guidelines to the field concerning the determination of
the individual mission elements, resources, that is, dollars, personnel,
equipment, facilities, and so forth. They do provide common standard
guidelines to the field. The peculiarities of course deal with the mis-
sion peculiarities and with the task to be performed, type peculiarities.
They leave the field a good bit of latitude in proposing the resources
that they require. This evidently gives rise to the fact that with
differences in mission and personnel and objectives in field organiza-
tions it would be very difficult to expect the total uniformity of
response.
Therein lies perhaps the charge of the wish list, but let me assure
you, sir, that this wish list gets much, much scrubbing between its
initial formulation and the final presentation and particularly in this
committee in terms of facilities.
The answer, of course, is continual scrubbing and review and
prioritizing and justification on the part of the headquarters elements
and then in terms of facilities. That sort of thing happens in General
Reilly's committee and through the Secretaries of the Air Force and
up through OSD prior to coming before this committee, so the so-
called wish list items are certainly scrubbed out of the proposals.
Mr. SINES. Are dollar constraints imposed on each AFSC division,
et cetera?
Colonel STANTON. Yes, sir, they are.
VACANT OR UNDERUTILIZED AFSC SPACE
Mr. SINES. Submit for the record a listing of available space at
AFSC facilities and your plans for the effective utilization of this
vacant space.
[The information follows:]
AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION OF SPACE, AFSC
With the shift in military priorities and emphasis to conventional type limited
war weapon systems, primarily caused by the SEA conflict, the Air Force re-
search and development role underwent immediate and drastic changes to meet
these new objectives. One impact of this redirection of activity is the reduction
in the use of existing facilities in the ballistic missle and space program com-
plexes. In response to these circumstances, the Air Force initiated action to
identify the expensive and highly specialized facilities whose potential use, con-
figuration, and remote location was such as to require that the facility be prop-
erly maintained and retained for support of future programs. In these instances,
it was concluded that it would not be productive or economical to consider these
facilities for possible alternative use. This includes facilities at the eastern test
range (ETR) Cape Kennedy launch area and the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory
at Edwards Air Force Base. The majority of the building area available for
alternative use at Cape Kennedy is comprised of structures including missile
assembly checkout buildings (hangar type design), launch complexes (block
houses, ready buildings, etc.). In the selection of activities to use these avail-
able facilities, we have insured that the newly assigned functions are com-
patible with the technical mission of the ETR. Consistent with this, the com-
tractor who operates the ETR has relocated his activities to Cape Kennedy
from off-base locations. In addition, a portion of the Air Force management of
ETR functions is now accommodated in facilities at Cape Kennedy. Further-
more, available space of a more general purpose nature on Patrick Air Force
Base has been used to accommodate the Air Force technical applications center
(AFTAC) and the Department of Defense Race Relations Institute (DRRI).
The remaining general purpose space at Patrick Air Force Base represents por-
tions of occupied buildings and is located in seven different structures. A simi-
lar situation exists at the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory which is lo-
cated within the Edwards Air Force Base perimeter but is actually 22 miles away
from the main area. In this situation, the current laboratory activities have been
centralized and the balance of the facilities at this relatively remote location
have been retained for future use. At Kirtland Air Force Base, the merger of this
base with the Sandia Base, has expanded the scope of the existing facilities
available for use to support Air Force missions. To effectively utilize these addi-
tional facilities, the Air Force has relocated the centralized contract manage-
ment functions to this base and announced the transfer of mission aircraft which
support certain electronic activities and the relocation of an academic and train-
ing activity to Kirtland Air Force Base. These missions and functions will fully
occupy a majority of the space that is available in the Kirtland Air Force Base
complex.
Mr. SIKES. IS there unused or unutilized space at these facilities ?
General REILLY. YOU are speaking of the Systems Command instal-
lations, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir.
General REILLY. Go ahead.
Colonel STANTON. Sir, I would say from our viewpoint other than
perhaps at Cape Kennedy or possibly to a lesser extent the rocket
propulsion lab, that we feel there can really be no proper charge
levied on overbuild and that there is a misunderutilization of space. I
would like to remind you, sir, that in the formative years of a mas-
sive effort in research and development in the missile and space world
we developed facilities totally utilizing, in those formative years, our
technology and expertise, and the payoff, I think is evident in terms of
our defense posture and our detente with Russia.
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, may I add something there ?
Mr. SIKES. Yes.
General REILLY. While it is true that the very technical facilities
that are designed to satisfy the peculiar requirement of a given weap-
ons svctem that may have just a one-time use, we do have large quan-
tities of administrative space associated with those programs. I think
the Air Force and Systems Command has been trying to make the best
use of that administrative space as evidenced by various changes in
activities that go on, activities going into Kirtland Air Force Base,
for example, and utilization of vacated facilities at Patrick. We are
constantly attempting to insure that we make the best use of vacated
space prior to building new at other locations.
278
AUTHORIZED AND CURRENT PERSONNEL STRENGTH BY ACTIVITY
Mr. SI Es. Provide a list showing authorized strength and current
personnel assigned at each major AFSC activity. Are manpower re-
ductions or increases planned during the next 3 years? If so, pro-
vide details. In those instances where the number assigned exceeds the
authorization, provide details as to why this is the case.
[The information follows:]
279
AFSC Authorized and Assigned Strength
Any adjustments shown are to AFSC strengths only at these installations and do
not necessarily indicate that similar adjustments are being made to total base
population.
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
LOCATION: Andrews AFB, Maryland
MAJOR UNITS: HQ, AFSC
6590th Support Sq
Authorized
MIL CIV
lo
Assigned
MIL CIV
S935
LOCATION: Arnold Engng Dev Center, Tenn
MAJOR UNITS: Arnold Engng Dev Center
Authorized
MIL CIV
Assigned
MIL CIV
-o
LOCATION: Brooks AFB, Texas
MAJOR UNITS: Aerospace Medical Division
Air Force Human Resources Lab
Authorized
MIL CIV
950 X
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Conversion --FY 74
Assigned
MIL CIV
96-0i 792
19 CIV
19 MIL to CIV
LOCATION: Edwards AFB, California
MAJOR UNITS: Air Force Flt Test Center
Air Force Rocket Propulsion Lab
Authorized
MIL CIV
3330 20 4
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Increase (A/C Maint) --FY 74
Conversion --FY 74
Assigned
MIL
33-9
131 CIV
150 MIL
66 MIL to CIV
LOCATION: Eglin AFB, Florida
MAJOR UNITS: Armament Development and Test Center
Air Force Armament Lab
Authorized
MIL CIV
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Phase Down of Programs--FY 74
Conversion --FY 74
Assigned
MIL CIV
7T7i + 3012
225 CIV
98 MIL
151 MIL to CIV
280
LOCATION: Griffiss AFB, New York
MAJOR UNITS: Rome Air Development Center
Authorized
MIL CIV
-6 1133
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Phase Down of Programs--FY 74
Assigned
MIL CIV
335 1132
26 CIV
49 MIL
LOCATION: L. G. Hanscom Field, Massachusetts
MAJOR UNITS: Electronics Systems Division
Air Force Cambridge Rsch Lab
Authorized
MIL CIV
1703 08
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Flight Line Closure --FY 74
Conversinn
--FY 74
Assigned
MIL
18Y9
150 CIV
156 MIL
275 CIV
47 MIL to CIV
LOCATION: Kirtland AFB, New Mexico
MAJOR UNITS: Air Force Special Weapon Center
Air Force Weapons Lab
Headquarters Air Force Contract Management Division
Authorized
MIL CIV
3125 2703
ACTION PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Conversion --FY 74
Assigned
MIL CIV
3228 2551
134 CIV
95 MIL to CIV
LOCATION: Los Angeles Air Force Station
MAJOR UNITS: Space & Missiles Systems Organization
Satellite Control Facility
Authorized
MIL CIV
1336 1013
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Conversion --FY 74
Assigned
MIL
1362
9 CIV
13 MIL to CIV
LOCATION: Patrick AFB, Florida
MAJOR UNITS: Air Force Eastern Test Range
6555th Aerospace Test Gp
Authorized
MIL CIV
69 19
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Conversion --FY 74
Program Changes --FY 74
(A/C Maint, Hospital and BOS)
Assigned
MIL
iTW9
7 CIV
94 MIL to CIV
-44 MIL
281
LOCATION: Vandenberg AFB, California
MAJOR UNITS: Space & Missile Test Center
Satellite Control Facility
Contract Management Office
Authorized Assi
MIL CIV MIL
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
LOCATION: Wr Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
MAJOR UNITS: Aeronautical Systems Division
Foreign Tech Division
Aerospace Research Lab
Avionics Lab
Flight Dynamics Lab
Aerospace Propulsion Lab
Materials Lab
Aerospace Medical Research Lal
fned
CIV
34 CIV
Authorized
MIL CIV
2772 8272
ACTIONS PLANNED:
Reduction (Employment)--FY 74
Phase Down of Programs--FY 74
Assigned
MIL CIV
2792 S009
296 CIV
53 MIL 38 CIV
The overage of military personnel is largely attributable to personnel in
a transient status and therefore not present and available for duty. Other
temporary overages or shortages may be caused by short term imbalances in
specific skills or assignment adjustments in anticipation of program changes.
b
RELOCATION OF AIR FORCE TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS CENTER
Mr. PATTEN. When the decision was made to move the Air Force
Technical Applications Center facility from Alexandria, Va., to Pat-
rick Air Force Base, were studies conducted to determine if there were
other facilities available, particularly at McClellan Air Force Base,
which could accommodate AFTAC? If so, provide a copy of that
study. If not, why was not a study made ?
General REILLY. Colonel Reed, will you address that?
Colonel REED. There was no study that I am aware of that specifi-
cally addressed McClellan Air Force Base. The review centered to a
great extent on the space at Patrick. The administrative type and
technical space required was available there and in a central location.
There would not be that type of special space available at
McClellan.
However, I know of no study we could provide you that specifically
addressed McClellan Air Force Base as a possible location.
Mr. PATTEN. Is it true that there is a substantial AFTAC activity
at McClellan at the present time ?
Colonel REED. There is a squadron which does work in the AFTAC
area, yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. How many AFTAC people are located there?
Colonel REED. I would have to provide that number for the record.
I do not have that.
[The information follows:]
AFTAC PERSONNEL AT MCCLELLAN
AFTAC's 115th Technical Operations Squadron at McClellan Air Force Base
currently is authorized 80 officers, 435 enlisted and 21 civilian personnel.
General REILLY. I think that number was materially reduced when
they moved to Patrick.
Colonel REED. It was somewhat reduced in our most recent base re-
alinement posture when some of these activities were relocated from
McClellan to Patrick from this operations squadron that you refer to.
Mr. PATTEN. When AFTAC vacated space in Alexandria, the Air
Force proposed to utilize the space for some space-critical Air Force
components. Instead, it was taken over by the Defense Nuclear Agency,
Does anybody know why ?
General REILLY. There was a Department of Defense decision.
Colonel REED. Yes, sir, that was arbitrated at the Department of De-
fense level and the decision was reached at the Department level.
POSSIBILITY OF RELOCATING ALL OR PART OF SYSTEMS COMMAND
HEADQUARTERS FROM WASHINGTON
Mr. PATTEN. Since there is a shortage of space in the Washington,
D.C. area, what consideration has been given to the relocation of Sys-
tems Command components to underutilized Air Force facilities away
from Washington ?
Colonel REED. Again, Systems Command Headquarters, which is
the predominant element in the Washington area, is an entity and it
requires coordination within its staff as well as external to its com-
mand. To fracture that out, for example, move elements from Andrews
to other bases, would present the Systems commander with an unten-
283
able position in which he would have elements of the staff perhaps lo-
cated anywhere from Edwards to Patrick back up to Andrews.
We do not have a Systems Command R. & D. activity in the Wash-
ington area that I am aware of.
Mr. PATTEN. Are all of the Systems Command activities in Wash-
ington directly included in the headquarters organization ?
Colonel REED. To my knowledge that is true, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. How large is the headquarters organization ?
Colonel REED. In total terms of population ?
Mr. PATTEN. Yes.
Colonel REED. I would have to provide it for the record. I do not
know the total.
[The information follows:]
AFSC HQ STRENGTH
Headquarters Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) is located at Andrews
Air Force Base, Md. Its authorized manpower strength is 762 military and 755
civilian authorizations. Other major AFSC activities located largely in the
Washington area, but not part of HQ AFSC are the 6590th support squadron,
Andrews Air Force Base, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research,
Rosslyn, Va. The authorized manpower strength of the 6590th support squadron
is 358 military and 223 civilian authorizations. The authorized manpower
strength of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research is 50 military and 101
civilian authorizations.
Mr. PATTEN. Could you also provide the number of square feet of
administrative or laboratory space which they occupy?
Colonel REED. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
AFSC HQ S