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 SQUARE FEET OF ADMINISTRATION AND LABORATORY SPACE

AFSC Headquarters personnel occupy 238,900 square feet of floorspace for

administrative purposes. This excludes the lobby, hallways, rest rooms, stair

wells, cafeteria, personnel support area, and storage space. There is no labora-

tory space occupied by AFSC headquarters personnel.

MANNED ORBITING LABORATORY FACILITIES

Mr. PATTEN. Has the manned orbiting laboratory facility at Van-

denberg Air Force Base ever been used ?

General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, the building support facilities, are

in use today by elements of the test activity located at Vandenberg.

The launch complex itself has not been used.

Mr. PATTEN. What was the cost of this facility ?

General REILLY. The support facilities amounted to about $5 million,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PATTEN. What plans do you have for utilization ?

General REILLY. The support facilities are in use today by elements

of Air Force Systems Command. The launch complex itself is being

studied for possible use in the Space Shuttle program when that

portion of it is assigned to the Air Force.

Mr. PATTEN. Has a study been conducted or plans formulated to

consolidate the space and missile systems organization in the MOL

facility ?

General REILLY. There has been a study conducted. The results of

that study indicated that it was in the best interests of the systems

284

command to remain in the Los Angeles area. I can provide details of

that if you would like.

Mr. PATTEN. Yes.

[The information follows:]

PLANNED USE OF MOL FACILITY

An evaluation was made several years ago of the feasibility of moving SAMSO

and Aerospace Corp. 'to Vandenberg. The MOL facilities were not large enough

to house the Space and Missile Systems Organization. It was determined that

major modifications to existing facilities and new construction would be required

to house the areospace contractor. The total cost of the move would have exceeded

$55 million. (Includes moving people, equipment, as well as the construction.)

The Space and Missiles Test Center (SAMTEC) and SAMTEC contractors

have been moved from old, substandard buildings on Vandenberg into the MOL

facilities. The Air Force then disposed of these substandard buildings.

STATUS OF OVERALL SYSTEMS COMMAND UTILIZATION STUDY

Mr. PATrEN. At the same time that the staff study was initiated the

Air Force did, on its own, as I understand it, a general study of its

utilization of systems command facilities. Is that correct ?

General REILLY. I think so; yes.

Mr. PATTEN. In the questions which have been developed here there

are a lot of instances in which the committee is really asking how have

you done studies, are you looking at this or that possibility, have you

done a specific study in a particular instance ?

To some extent you have done a general overall study but if your

answers to these questions are "No; we have not done a study," does

that imply that you didn't look at this possibility in the general overall

study of your systems command facilities?

General REILLY. YOU are speaking of the entire command and all

of their installations?

Mr. PATTEN. Right.

General REILLY. Colonel Stanton.

Colonel STANTON. No, sir; the AFSC overall study that was envi-

sioned a year ago did not come to fruition. There have been lesser

studies on mission elements and relocations and consolidations, some

of which have been reflected in the recent Secretary of Defense's

announcement, but the full total command overview study has not been

conducted, sir.

Mr. PATTEN. Has it been cancelled? Has it been taken over by

events in terms of base realignments-

Colonel STANTON. I don't know the exact status of it, whether it will

be reinitiated, but at the present time it is inactive.

UTILIZATION OF